w 


% 


\ 


7 


N> 


\ 


« " 


4  J 


^ 


js* 


« 


I 


■ 


i 


— 


Entered  at  tlu>  New  York  Pout 


cond  class  matter. 


IQ.    Issued  Monthly. 


a 


vft^illj 


■<BF. 


m 


ja/t, 


Wp 


mm 


JF 


li 


'  jr 


Entered  at  the  New  York  Post  Office  as  second  class  matter. 


LABOR  LIBRARY.    No.  12.    Issued  Monthly.    Single  Number  10  cents. 


Gov.  Altgeld's  Pardon 


AND 


The  Modern  Tragedy, 

DOWNFALL  OF  THE  SMALL  PRODUCER. 


-AND- 


THK  CRISIS, 

Its  Cause  and  Cure  as  Explained  and 
Proposed  by  Socialism. 


New  York  Labor  t  ews  Company, 

S4  EAST    -OURTH  ST. 
New  York,  June,  1   94. 


JM 


LABOR  NEWS  COMPANY. 

PROPERTY   OF  THE 

Socialist  Labor  Party, 

64   EAST   FOURTH   STREET, 

JVE>W  YORK    CITY. 


The  Completest  Collection 


-OF- 


SOCIALIST  LITERATURE. 


ADDRESS  ORDERS  AND   REMITTANCES  TO 
04  East  Fourth  Street  Xew   York   City. 


LABOR  LIBRARY. 


No.  12.  { 

Published  Monthly.  ) 


JUNE,  1894. 


(■Subscription  Prtoe 
t      $1.00  per  year. 


Price  of  this  pamphlet,  10  cents  per  copy. 


Published  by  the  N.  Y.  LABOR  NEWS  CO.,  6!  East  4th  St.,  New  York. 
Entered  at  the  New  York  Post  Office  as  Second  Class  Matter. 


THEIR  ASSASSINS  ON  THE  PILLORY. 


[From    the    NEW    YORK    PEOPLE.] 

Workingmen  of  America ! 

Below  are  the  grounds  given  by  John  P.  Altgelt,  the  Governor  of  Illinois,  for 
pardoning  the  surviving  martyrs  of  the  capitalist  conspiracy  that  culminated  with 
the  judicial  murders  of  November  11,  1887. 

Read  this  document ;  engrave  every  word  of  it  on  your  minds  and  your  hearts. 

It  attests,  under  the  highest  official  seal  of  the  State  of  Illinois;  that  the  sole 
responsible  agencies  for  the  Haymarket  tragedy  of  May  5,  1886,  were  Captain  John 
Bonfield  and  other  members  of  the  Chicago  polioe  (whose  brutality  had  terrorized  the 
working  people  of  that  city;  together  with  with  those  equally  culpable  officials,  who 
allowed  the  polioe  felonies  to  go  unpunished,  and  who  opened  wide  the  doors  of  the 
prisons  but  shut  tight  those  of  the  Courts  of  Justice  to  the  injured  laboring  classes;  that 
the  jury  that  convicted  Parsons,  Spies,  Fischer,  Engel,  Lingg,  Fielden,  Sohwab  and 
Neebe  was  criminally  packed  by  the  officers  of  the  Court;  that  in  this  heinous  deed 
Judge  Gary,  State  Attorney  Julius  S.  Grinnell  and  Special  Bailiff  Henry  L.  Ryce 
were  virtually  and  actually  in  collusion;  that  all  of  them  acted  throughout  the  trial 
with  indecent  ferocity,  in  violation  of  their  oaths  of  office,  in  deference  to  the  clamor 
and  obedient  to  the  mandates  of  the  employing  class,  whose  approval  they  corruptly 
sought  to  win;  that  the  most  important  witnesses  for  the  State  were  bribed  or  bull- 
dozed to  testify  under  dictation  of  the  conspirators;  that,  accordingly,  the  trial  and 
the  enforcement  of  all  its  decrees  was  rank  anaichy,  and  a  blot  upon  civilization; 
and  that  all  the  prisoners  were  innocent 


—     2    — 

Thus  this  black  and  damnable  conspiracy  of  the  capitalist  class  to  cow  the  Labor 
Movement  has  proved  a  boomerang.  The  guns  loaded  for  ns  have  kicked  backward. 
The  capitalist  class  and  its  machinations  mount  the  pillory;  the  viotims  emerge  with 
all  the  glory  that  at  all  times  has  been  the  meed  of  martyrdom. 

The  aiders  and  abettors  in  this  crime,  the  accessories  before  and  after  its  com- 
mission, was  the  capitalist  press  of  the  country.  After  having  vainly  striven  to 
poison  the  public  mind  with  calumnies  and  fabrications  against  the  men  whose  death 
they  had  demanded  like  blood-hounds,  they  now  seek  to  smother  by  a  conspiracy  of 
silence  the  indictment  of  their  conduct  which  they  read  between  the  lines  of  the 
Statement  of  Governor  Altgelt. 

In  view  of  this  fact,  The  People  yields  to  this  historic  document  the  right  of 
way  in  to-day's  issue,  and  publishes  it  here  in  full,  literally  as  it  appears  in  the 
original,  italics  and  all. 


Governor  John   P.  Altgelt's  Statement. 

On  the  night  of  May  4,  1886,  a  public  meeting  was  held  on  Haymarket  square  in 
Chicago.  There  were  from  800  to  1,400  people  present,  nearly  all  being  laboring  men. 
There  had  been  trouble,  growing  out  of  an  effort  to  introduce  the  eight-hour  day,  result- 
ing in  some  collisions  with  the  police,  in  one  of  which  several  laboring  people  were 
killed,  and  this  meeting  was  called  as  a  protest  against  alleged  police  brutality. 

The  meeting  was  orderly  and  was  attended  by  the  mayor,  who  remained  until  the 
crowd  began  to  disperse  and  then  went  away.  As  soon  as  Captain  John  Bonfield,  of  the 
police  department,  learned  that  the  mayor  had  gone,  he  took  a  detachment  of  police  and 
hurried  to  the  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  dispersing  the  few  that  remained,  and  as  the 
police  approached  the  plaoe  of  the  meeting  a  bomb  was  thrown  by  some  unknown 
person,  which  exploded  and  wounded  many  and  killed  several  policemen,  among  the 
latter  being  one  Mathias  Degan.  A  number  of  people  were  arrested,  and  after  a  time 
August  Spies,  Albert  E,.  Parsons,  Louis  Linge,  Miohael  Schwab,  Samuel  Fielden,  George 
EngH  Adolph  Fischer  and  Oscar  Neebe  were  indicted  for  the  murder  of  Degan.  The 
prosecution  could  not  discover  who  had  thrown  the  bomb,  and  could  not  bring  the 
really  guilty  man  to  justice,  and,  as  some  of  the  men  indicted  were  not  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  it,  the  prosecution  was  forced  to  proceed  on  the 
theory  that  the  men  indicted  were  guilty  of  murder  because  it  was  claimed  they  had  at 
various  times  in  the  past  uttered  and  printed  incendiary  and  seditious  language,  practi- 
cally advising  the  killing  of  policemen,  of  Pinkerton  men  and  others  acting  in  tbat 
capacity,  and  that  they  were  therefore  responsible  for  the  murder  of  Mathias  Degan. 
The  public  was  greatly  excited,  and  after  a  prolonged  trial  all  of  the  defendants  were 
found  guilty.  Oscar  Neebe  was  sentenced  for  fifteen  years'  imprisonment,  and  all  of 
the  other  defendants  were  sentenoed  to  be  hanged.  The  case  was  carried  to  the  supreme 
court  and  was  there  affirmed  in  the  fall  of  1887.  Soon  thereafter  Lingg  committed 
suicide.  The  sentence  of  Fielden  and  Schwab  was  commuted  to  imprisonment  for  life, 
and  Parsons,  Fischer,  Engle  and  Spies  were  hanged,  and  the  petitioners  now  ask  to 
have  Neebe,  Fielden  and  Schwab  set  at  liberty. 

Basis  for  Appeal  of  Fardou. 

The  several  thousand  merchants,  bankers,  judges,  lawyers  and  other  prominent  citi- 
zens of  Chicago  who  have  by  petition,  by  letter  and  in  other  ways  urged  executive 
clemency,  mostly  base  their  appeal  on  the  ground  that,  assuming  the  prisoners  to  be 
guilty,  they  have  been  punished  enough,  but  a  number  of  them  who  have  examined  the 
case  more  carefully  and  are  more  familiar  with  the  record  and  with  the  facts  disclosed 
by  the  papers  on  file  base  their  appeal  on  entirely  different  grounds.    They  assert : 

1.  That  the  jury  which  tried  the  case  was  a  packed  jury  selected  to  oonviot. 

2.  That  according  to  the  law  as  laid  down  by  the  supreme  court,  both  prior  to  and 
again  since  the  trial  of  this  case,  the  jurors,  according  to  their  own  answers  were  not 
competent  jurors  and  the  trial  was  therefore  not  a  legal  trial. 


-     3     — 

3.  That  the  defendants  were  not  proved  to  be  guilty  of  the  crime  cnarged  in  the 
indictment. 

4.  That  as  to  the  defendant  Neebe  the  state's  attorney  had  delared  at  the  close  of  the 
evidence  that  there  was  no  oase  against  him,  and  yet  he  has  been  kept  in  prison  all 
these  years. 

5.  That  the  trial  judge  was  either  so  prejudiced  against  the  defendants  or  else  so 
determined  to  win  the  applause  of  a  certain  olass  in  the  oommunity  that  he  could  not 
and  did  not  grant  a  fair  trial. 

Upon  the  question  of  having  been  punished  enough  I  will  simply  say  that  if  the 
defendants  had  a  fair  trial,  and  nothing  has  developed  sinoe  to  show  that  they  are  not 
guilty  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indictment,  then  there  ought  to  be  no  executive  inter- 
ference, for  no  punishment  under  our  laws  oould  then  be  too  severe.  Government 
must  defend  itself ;  life  and  property  must  be  proteoted  and  law  and  order  must  be 
maintained ;  murder  must  be  punished,  and  if  the  defendants  are  guilty  of  murder, 
either  oommitted  with  their  own  hands  or  some  one  else  acting  on  their  advice,  then  if 
they  have  had  a  fair  trial,  there  should  be  in  this  case  no  executive  interference.  The 
soil  of  America  is  not  adapted  for  the  growth  of  anarchy.  While  our  institutions  are 
not  free  from  injustice,  they  are  still  the  best  that  have  yet  been  devised,  and  therefore 
must  be  maintained. 

Was  tbe  Jury  packed  ? 

The  record  of  the  trial  shows  that  the  jury  in  this  case  was  not  drawn  in  the  manner 
that  juries  usually  are  drawn;  that  is,  instead  of  having  a  number  of  names  drawn  out 
of  a  box  that  contained  many  hundred  names,  as  the  law  contemplates  dhall  be  done  in 
order  to  insure  a  fair  jury  and  give  neither  side  the  advantage,  the  trial  judge  appointed 
one  Henry  L.  Byce  as  a  special  bailiff  to  go  out  and  summon  such  men  as  he,  liyce, 
might  select  to  act  as  jurors.  While  this  practice  has  been  sustained  in  cases  in  which 
it  did  not  appear  that  either  side  has  been  prejudiced  thereby,  it  is  always  a  dangerous 
practice,  for  it  gives  the  bailiff  absolute  power  to  select  a  jury  that  will  be  favorable  to 
one  side  or  the  other.  Counsel  for  the  state  in  their  printed  brief,  say  that  Byce  was 
appointed  on  motion  of  defendants,  while  it  appears  that  oounsel  for  defendants  were  in 
favor  of  having  some  one  appointed  the  record  has  this  entry: 

"Mr.  Orinnell  suggested  Mr.  Byce  as  special  bailiff  and  he  was  accepted  and  appointed." 
But  it  makes  no  difference  on  whose  motion  he  was  appointed  if  he  did  not  select  a  fair 
jury.  It  is  shown  that  he  boasted  while  securing  jurors  that  he  was  managing  this  case;  that 
these  fellows  would  hang  as  certain  as  death)  that  he  was  calling  such  men  as  the  defendants 
would  have  to  challenge  peremptorily  and  waste  their  challenges  on,  and  that  when  their 
challt'iges  were  exhausted  they  would  have  to  take  such  men  as  the  prosecution  wanted.  It 
appears  from  the  record  of  the  trial  that  the  defendants  were  obliged  to  exhaust  all  of 
their  peremptory  challenges  and  they  had  to  take  a  jury,  almost  every  member  of  which 
stated  frankly  that  he  was  prejudiced  against  them.  On  page  133  of  volume  I.  of  the 
record  it  appears  that  when  the  panel  was  about  two-thirds  fall,  counsel  for  the  defen- 
dants called  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  fact  that  Byce  was  summoning  only  pre- 
judiced men,  as  shown  by  their  examinations;  further,  that  he  was  confining  himself  to 
particular  olasses,  i.  e.,  clerks,  merchants,  manufacturers,  etc.  Counsel  for  defendants 
then  moved  the  court  to  stop  this  and  direct  Byce  to  summon  the  jurors  from  the  body 
of  the  people,  that  is,  from  the  oommunity  at  large,  and  not  from  particular  classes;  but 
the  court  refused  to  take  any  notice  of  the  matter. 

About  Bailiff  Byce. 

For  the  ourpose  of  still  further  showing  the  misconduct  of  Bailiff  Byce  reference  is 
made  to  the  "affidavit  of  Otis  S.  Favor.  Mr.  Favor  is  one  of  the  most  reputable  and 
honorable  business  men  of  Chicago;  he  was  himself  summoned  by  Byce  as  a  juror,  but 
was  so  prejudiced  against  the  defendants  that  he  had  to  be  excused,  and  he  abstained 
from  making  any  affidavit  before  sentence  because  the  state's  attorney  had  requested 
him  not  to  make  it,  although  he  stood  ready  to  go  into  court  and  tell  what  he  knew  if 
the  court  wished  him  to  do  so,  and  he  naturally  supposed  he  would  be  sent  for.  But 
after  the  supreme  court  had  paesed  on  the  case  and  some  of  the  defendants  were  about 
to  be  hanged  he  felt  that  an  injustice  was  being  done  and  he  made  the  following 
affidavit: 


State  of  Illinois,  Cook  County,  ss: — Otis  S.  Favor,  being  duly  sworn,  on  oath 
says  that  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  of  Illinois  ,  residing  in 
Chicago,  and  a  merchant  doing  business  at  6  and  8  Wabash  avenue,  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  in  said  county.  That  he  is  very  well  acquainted  with  Henry  L,  Ryce,  of  Cook 
County,  Illinois,  who  aoted  as  a  special  bailiff  in  summoning  jurors  in  the  oase  of  the 
People,  etc.,  vs.  Spies  et  al.,  indioted  for  murder,  tried  in  the  oriminal  court  of  Cook 
County  in  the  summer  of  1886.  That  affiant  was  himself  summoned  by  said  Ryce  for  a 
juror  in  said  cause,  but  was  challenged  and  excused  therein  beoause  of  his  prejudice. 
That  on  several  occasions  in  conversation  between  affiant  and  said  Ryce  tonching  the 
summoning  of  the  jurors  by  said  Ryce,  and  while  said  Ryce  was  so  acting  as  special 
bailiff  as  aforesaid,  said  Ryce  said  to  this  affiant  and  to  other  persons  in  affiant's  pre- 
sence, in  substanoe  and  effect  as  follows,  to  wit:  "I  [meaning  said  Ryce]  am  managing 
this  case  [meaning  this  case  against  Spies  et  al.]  and  know  what  I  am  about.  Those 
fellows  [meaning  the  defendants.  Spies  et  al.]  are  going  to  be  hanged  as  certain  as  death. 
I  am  calling  such  men  as  the  defendants  will  have  to  challenge  peremptorily  and  waste 
their  time  and  challenges.  Then  they  will  have  to  take  such  men  as  the  prosecution 
wants. "  That  affiant  has  been  very  reluctant  to  make  any  affidavit  in  this  case,  having 
no  sympathy  with  anarchy  or  relationship  to  or  personal  interest  in  the  defendants  or 
any  of  them,  and  not  being  a  socialist,  communist  or  anarchist ;  but  affiant  has  an  in- 
terest as  a  citizen  in  the  due  administration  of  the  law,  and  that  no  injustice  should  be 
done  under  judicial  procedure,  and  believes  that  jurors  should  not  be  selected  with 
reference  to  their  known  views  or  prejudice.  Affiant  further  says  that  his  personal  re- 
lations with  said  Ryce  were  at  that  time  and  for  many  years  theretofore  had  been  most 
friendly  and  even  intimate,  and  that  affiant  is  not  prompted  by  any  ill  will  toward  any- 
one in  making  this  affidavit,  but  solely  by  a  sense  of  duty  and  a  conviction  of  what  is 
due  to  justice. 

Affiant  further  says  that  about  the  beginning  of  October,  1886,  when  the  motion  for  a 
new  trial  was  being  argued  in  said  cases  before  Judge  Gary,  and  when,  as  he  was  in- 
formed, application  was  made  before  Judge  Gary  for  leave  to  examine  affiant  in  open 
court  touching  the  matters  above  stated,  this  affiant  went  upon  request  from  State's 
Attorney  Grinnell  to  his  office  during  the  noon  recess  of  the  court,  and  there  held  an 
interview  with  said  Grinnell,  Mr.  Ingham  and  said  Ryce,  in  the  presence  of  several 
other  persons,  including  some  police  officers,  where  affiant  repeated  substantially  the 
matters  above  stated,  and  the  said  Ryce  did  not  deny  affiant's  statements,  and  affiant 
said  that  he  would  have  to  testify  thereto  if  summoned  as  a  witness,  but  had  refused  to 
make  an  affidavit  thereto,  and  affiant  was  then  and  there  asked  and  urged  to  persist  in  his 
refusal  and  to  make  n~>  affidavit.     And  affiant  further  saith  not. 

Otis  S.  Favob. 
Subscribed  aod  sworn  to  before  me  this  7th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1887. 

Julius  Stern, 
Notary  Fublio  in  and  for  said  County. 

So  far  as  is  shown  no  one  connected  with  the  state's  attorney's  office  has  ever  denied 
the  statements  of  Mr.  Favor  as  to  what  took  place  in  that  office,  although  his  affidavit 
was  made  in  November,  1887. 

Examination   of  Jurors. 

As  to  Bailiff  Ryce  it  appears  that  he  has  made  an  affidavit  in  which  he  denies  that 
he  made  the  statements  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Favor,  but,  unfortunately  for  him,  the  record 
of  the  trial  is  against  him,  for  it  shows  conclusively  that  he  summoned  only  the  class  of 
men  mentioned  in  Mr.  Favor's  affidavit.  According  to  the  record  891  men  were  ex- 
amined as  to  their  qualifications  as  j  urors  and  most  of  them  were  either  employers  or 
men  who  had  been  pointed  out  to  the  bailiff  by  their  employers.  The  following,  taken 
from  the  original  record  of  the  trial,  are  fair  specimens  of  the  answers  of  nearly  all 
the  jurors,  except  that  in  the  following  cases  the  court  succeeded  in  getting  the  jurors 
to  say  that  they  believed  they  could  try  the  case  fairly  notwithstanding  their  prejudice. 

William  Neil,  a  manufacturer,  was  examined  at  length;  stated  that  he  had  heard  and 
read  about  the  Haymarket  trouble  and  believed  enough  of  what  he  had  heard  and  read 
to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants,  which  he  still  entertained;  that  he 
had  expressed  said  opinion,  and  then  he  added:  "It  would  take  pretty  strong  evidence 
to  remove  the  impression  that  I  now  have.     I  could  not  dismiss  it  from  my  mind ; 


—   i   — 

could  not  lay  it  altogether  aside  during  the  trial.  I  believe  my  present  opinion,  based 
upon  what  I  have  heard  and  read,  would  accompany  me  through  the  trial  and  would  in- 
fluence me  in  determining  and  getting  at  a  verdict." 

He  was  challenged  by  the  defendants  on  the  ground  of  being  prejudiced,  but  the 
court  then  got  him  to  say  that  he  believed  he  could  give  a  fair  verdict  on  whatever  evi- 
dence he  should  hear,  and  whereupon  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

H.  F.  Chandler,  in  the  stationery  business  with  Skeen,  Stuart  &  Co.,  said:  "I  was 
pointed  out  to  the  deputy  sheriff  by  my  employer  to  be  summoned  as  a  juror."  He  then 
stated  that  he  had  read  and  talked  about  the  Haymarket  trouble,  and  had  formed  and 
frequently  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  tne  defendants,  and  that  he  believed 
the  statements  he  had  read  and  heard.    He  was  asked: 

Q.  Is  that  a  decid  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants  ? 

A.  It  is  a  deoided  opinion;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  mind  is  pretty  well  made  up  now  as  to  their  guilt  or  innocence  ? 

a    Ygs  sir. 

Q.  Would  it  be  hard  to  change  your  opinion? 

A.  It  might  be  hard;  I  cannot  say.    I  don't  know  Whether  it  would  be  hard  or  not. 

He  was  challenged  by  the  defendants  on  the  ground  of  being  prejudiced;  then  the 
court  took  him  in  hand  and  examined  him  at  some  length  and  got  him  to  state  that  he 
believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly.     Then  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

F.  L.  Wilson — Am  a  manufacturer.  I  am  prejudiced  and  have  formed  an  expressed 
opinion;  that  opionion  would  influence  me  in  rendering  a  verdict. 

He  was  challenged  for  cause,  but  was  then  examined  by  the  court. 

Q.  Are  you  conscious  in  your  own  mind  of  any  wish  or  desire  that  there  should  be 
evidence  produoed  in  this  trial  which  should  prove  some  of  these  men,  or  any  of  them, 
to  be  guilty? 

A.  Well,  I  think  I  have. 

Being  further  pressed  by  the  court  he  said  that  the  only  feeling  he  had  against  the 
defendants  was  based  upon  having  taken  it  for  granted  that  what  he  read  about  them 
was  in  the  main,  true;  that  he  believed  that  sitting  as  a  juror  the  effect  of  the  evidence  either 
for  or  against  the  defendants,  would  be  increased  or  diminished  by  wliat  he  heard  or  reud 
about  the  case  Then,  on  being  still  further  pressed  by  the  court,  he  finally  said:  "Well, 
I  feel  that  I  hope  that  the  guilty  one  will  be  discovered  and  punished,  not  necessarily 
these  men." 

A.  Are  you  conscious  of  any  other  wish  or  desire  about  the  matter  than  that  the 
actual  truth  maj  be  discovered? 

A,     I  don't  think  I  am. 

Thereupon  the  ohallenge  was  overruled. 

George  N.  Porter,  grocer,  testified  that  he  nad  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion 
as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants  and  that  this  opinion,  he  thought,  would  bias  his 
judgment ;  he  would  try  to  go  by  the  evidence,  but  that  what  he  had  read  would  have 
a  great  dea'l  to  do  with  his  verdict ;  his  mind,  he  said,  was  certainly  biased  now,  and 
that  it  would  take  a  great  deal  of  evidence  to  change  it.  He  was  challenged  for  cause 
by  the  defendants  ;  was  then  examined  by  the  court  and  said  : 

I  think  what  I  have  heard  and  read  before  I  came  into  court  would  have  some 
influence  with  me,  but  the  court  finally  got  him  to  say  he  believed  he  could  fairly  and 
impartially  try  the  case  and  render  a  verdict  according  to  law  and  evidence,  and  that 
he  would  try  to  do  so.  Tnereupon  the  court  overruled  the  challenge  for  cause.  Then 
he  was  asked  some  more  questions  by  the  defendants'  oounsel  and  among  other  things 

"Why  we  have  talked  about  it  there  a  great  many  times  and  I  have  always  express- 
ed my  opinion.  I  believe  what  I  Jutve  read  in  the  papers;  I  believe  that  the  parties  are 
guilty.     I  would  try  to  go  by  the  evidence,  but  <n  this  case  it  would  be  awful  hard  work  for  me 

He  was  challenged  a  second  time  on  the  ground  of  being  prejudiced;  was  then 
again  taken  in  hand  by  the  court  and  examined  at  length,  and  finally  again  said  he 
believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  on  the  evidence,  when  the  challenge  for  cause  was 
overruled  for  the  second  time. 

H  N.  Smith,  hardware  merchant,  stated  among  other  things  that  he  was  prejudiced 
and  had  quite  a  decided  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  that  he 


-     6     — 

had  expressed  his  opinion  and  still  entertained  it,  and  candidly  stated  he  was  afraid  he 
would  listen  a  little  more  attentively  to  the  testimony  whioh  concurred  with  his  opinion 
than  the  testimony  on  the  other  side  ;  that  some  of  the  policemen  injured  were  personal 
friends  of  his.     He  was  asked  these  questions  : 

Q.  That  is,  you  woul  be  willing  to  have  your  opinion  strengthened  and  hate  very 
muoh  to  have  it  dissolved  ? 

A.     I  would, 

Q.     Under  these  circumstances  do  you  think  that  you  could  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict? 
A.     I  don't  think  I  could. 
Q.     You  think  you  would  be  prejudiced? 
A,     I  think  I  would  be,  became  my  feelings  are  very  bitter, 

Q,  Would,  your  prejudice  in  anv  way  influence  you  in  coming  at  an  opinion,  in  arriving  at  a 
verdict? 

A.     I  think  it  would. 

He  was  challenged  on  the  ground  of  being  perjudiced  ;  was  interrogated  at  length 
by  the  oourt,  and  was  brought  to  say  he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  on  the 
evidence  produced  in  oourt.     Then  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

Leonard  Gould,  wholesale  grocer,  was  examined  at  length ;  said  he  had  a  decided 
prejudice  against  the  defendants.  Among  other  things  he  said:  "I  really  don't  know 
that  I  could  do  the  case  justice  ;  if  I  was  to  sit  on  the  case  I  should  just  give  my  un- 
divided attention  to  the  evidence  and  calculate  to  be  governed  by  that."  He  was  chal- 
lenged for  cause  and  the  challenge  overruled.  He  was  then  asked  the  question  over 
again,  whether  he  could  render  an  impartial  verdict  based  upon  the  evidence  alone  that 
would  be  produoed  in  oourt,  and  answered  :  "Well,  I  answered  that  as  far  as  I  could 
answer  it." 

Q.    You  say  you  don't  know  that  you  can  answer  that  either  yes  or  no  ? 

A.     No,  I  don't  know  that  I  can. 
Thereupon  the  court  proceeded  to  examine  him,  endeavoring  to  get  him  to  state 
that  he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  upon  the  evidence  that  was  produoed  in 
court,  part  of  the  examination  being  as  follows  : 

Q.  Now,  do  you  believe  that  you  can — that  you  have  sufficiently  reflected  upon 
it — sc  as  to  axamine  your  own  mind,  that  you  oan  fairly  and  impartially  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  ? 

A.     That  is  a  difficult  question  for  me  to  answer. 

Q.  Well,  make  up  your  mind  as  to  whether  you  oan  render,  fairly  and  impartially 
render,  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence.  Most  men  in  business 
possibly  have  not  gone  through  a  metaphysical  examination,  so  as  to  be  prepared  to 
answer  a  question  of  this  kind. 

A.    Judge,  I  don't  believe  I  can  answer  that  question. 

Q.    Oan  you  answer  whether  you  believe  you  know  ? 

A.    If  I  had  to  do  that  I  should  do  the  best  I  could. 

Q.  The  question  is  whether  you  believe  you  could  or  not?  I  suppose,  Mr.  Gould, 
that  you  know  the  law  is  that  no  man  is  to  be  convicted  of  any  offense  with  whioh  he  is 
charge  unless  the  evidence  proves  that  he  is  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt? 

A.     That  is  true. 

Q.     The  evidence  heard  in  this  case  in  oourt  ? 

A.    Yes. 

Q.    Do  you  believe  that  you  oan  render  a  verdiot  in  accordance  with  the  law? 

A.    Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  could. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can't— if  you  don't  know  ©f  any  reason  why  you  oan- 
not,  do  you  believe  that  you  can't? 

A,    I  cannot  answer  that  question, 

Q.  Have  you  a  belief  one  way  or  other  as  to  whether  you  can  or  cannot  ?  Not 
whether  you  are  going  to  do  it,  but  do  you  believe  you  cannot?  That  is  the  only  thing. 
You  are  not  required  to  state  what  is  going  to  happen  next  week  or  week  after,  but  what 
do  you  believe  about  yourself,  whether  you  oan  or  oan't  ? 

A.    I  am  about  where  I  was  when  I  started. 

Some  more  questions  were  asked  and  Mr.  Gould  answered  : 

Well,  I  think  I  have  gone  just  as  far  as  I  can  in  reply  to  that  question. 

Q.     This  question,  naked  and  simple  of  itself  is,  do  you  believe  that  you  oan  fairly 


-    .7     — 

and  impartially  render  a  verdict  in  the  case  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence  ? 

A.    I  believe  I  could. 

Having  finally  badgered  the  juror  into  giving  this  last  answer  the  court  desisted. 
The  defendants'  counsel  asked  : 

Do  you  believe  that  you  oan  do  so  uninfluenced  by  any  prejudioe  or  opinion  which 
you  now  have  ? 

A.     You  bring  it  at  a  point  that  I  object  to  and  I  do  not  feel  competent  to  answer. 

Thereupon  the  juror  whas  challenged  a  second  time  for  cause,  and  the  challenge 
was  overruled. 

James  H.  Walker,  dry  goods  merchant,  stated  that  he  had  formed  and  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants  ;  that  he  was  prejudiced,  and  stated  that  his 
prejudioe  would  handicap  him. 

Q.  Considering  all  prejudice  and  all  opinions  that  you  have,  if  the  testimony 
was  equally  balanced  would  you  decide  one  way  or  the  other  in  accordance  with  that 
opinion  or  your  prejudice? 

A.     If  the  testimony  was  equally  balanced  I  should  hold  my  present  opinion  sir. 

Q.  Assuming  that  your  present  opinion  is  that  you  believe  the  defendants  guilty, 
would  you  believe  your  present  opinion  would  warrant  you  in  convicting  them  ? 

A.     I  presume  it  would. 

Q.     Well,  you  believe  it  would  ;  that  is  your  present  belief  ;  is  it  ? 

A.     Yes  sir. 

He  Was  challenged  on  the  ground  of  prejudioe. 

The  court  then  examined  him  at  length  and  finally  asked  : 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  sit  here  and  fairly  and  impartially  make  up  your 
mind,  from  the  evidence,  whether  that  evidenoe  proves  that  they  are  guilty  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  or  not? 

A.  I  think  I  could,  but  I  should  believe  that  I  was  a  little  handicapped  in  my 
judgment,  sir. 

Thereupon  the  court,  in  the  presence  of  the  jurors  not  yet  examined,  remarked  : 

Well,  that  is  a  sufficient  qualification  for  a  juror  in  the  case — of  course,  the  more  a  man  fti  It 
that  he  is  handicapped  the  more  he  will  be  guarded  against  it, 

W.  B.  Allen,  wholesale  rubber  business,  stat.  d  among  other  things  : 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  what  you  have  formed  from  what  you  have  read  and 
heard  is  a  slight  impression,  or  an  opinion,  or  a  oonviotion  ? 

It  is  a  decided  conviction. 

Q.     You  have  made  up  your  mind  as  to  whether  these  men  are  guilty  or  innocent? 

A.    Yes  sir. 

Q.     It  would  be  difficult  to  change  that  conviction,  or  impossible  perhaps  ? 

A.     Yes  sir. 

Q.     It  would  be  impossible  to  change  your  conviction  ? 

A.     It  would  be  hard  to  change  my  oonviction. 

He  was  challenged  for  cause  by  defendants.  Then  he  was  examined  by  the  court 
at  length  and  finally  brought  to  the  point  of  saying  that  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  and 
impartially  and  would  do  so.     Then  the  challenge  for  cause  was  overruled. 

H.  L.  Anderson  was  examined  at  length  and  stated  that  he  had  formed  and  express- 
ed an  opinion,  still  held  it,  was  prejudiced,  but  that  he  could  lay  aside  his  prejudices 
and  grant  a  fair  trial  upon  the  evidence.  On  being  further  examined  he  said  that  some 
of  the  policemen  injured  were  friends  of  his  and  he  had  talked  with  them  fully.  He  had 
formed  an  unqualified  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  whioh  he 
regarded  as  deepseated,  a  firm  conviction  tnat  these  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  were 
guilty.     He  was  challenged  on  the  ground  of  prejudice,  but  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

M.  D.  Flavin,  in  the  marble  business.  He  had  read  and  talked  about  the  Haymarket 
trouble  and  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
defendants,  which  he  still  held  and  which  was  very  strong ;  further,  that  one  of  the 
officers  killed  at  the  Haymarket  was  a  relative  of  his,  although  the  relationship  was 
distant,  but  on  account  of  this  relationship  his  feelings  were  perhaps  diffirent  from 
what  they  would  have  been  and  occasioned  a  very  strong  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the 
defendants,  and  that  he  had  stated  to  others  that  he  believed  what  he  had  heard  and 
read  about  the  matter.     He  was  challenged  on  tbe  ground  of  prejudice,  and  then  stated 


in  answer  to  a  question  from  the  pioseoution  that  he  believed  that  he  could  give  a  fair 
and  impartial  verdiot,  when  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

Rash  Harrison,  in  the  silk  department  of  Edson  Keith  &  Co.,  was  examined  at 
length  ;  stated  that  he  had  a  deep-rooted  conviction  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocenoe  of  the 
defendants.     He  said  :  . 

"It  would  have  considerable  weight  with  me  if  selected  as  a  juror.  It  is  pretty  deep- 
rooted,  that  opinion  is,  and  it  would  take  a  large  preponderance  of  evidence  to  remove 
it :  it  would  require  the  preponderance  of  evidence  to  remove  the  opinion  I  now  posses. 
I  feel  like  every  other  good  citizen  does.  I  feel  that  these  men  are  guilty  :  we  don't 
know  which  :  we  have  formed  this  opinion  by  general  reports  from  the  newspapers. 
Now,  with  that  feeling,  it  would  take  some  very  positive  evidence  to  make  me  think 
these  men  were  not  guilty  if  I  should  aoquit  them  :  that  is  what  I  mean.  I  should  aot 
entirely  upon  the  testimony  :  I  would  do  as  near  as  the  main  evidence  would  permit 
me  to  do.     Probably  I  would  take  the  testimony  alone." 

Q.  But  you  say  that  it  would  take  positive  evidence  of  their  innocence  before  you 
could  consent  to  return  them  not  guilty  ? 

A.    Yes,  I  would  want  some  strong  evidence. 

Q.  Well,  if  that  strong  evidenoe  of  their  innooence  was  not  introduced,  then  you 
want  to  convict  them  of  course  ? 

A.     Certainly. 

He  was  then  challenged  on  the  ground  of  being  prejudiced,  when  the  judge  proceed- 
ed to  interrogate  him  and  finally  got  him  to  say  that  he  believed  he  oould  try  the  oase 
fairly  on  the  evidence  alone :  then  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

J.  B,  Adams,  importer,  testified  that  he  was  prejudiced  :  had  formed  and  expressed 
opinions  and  still  held  them.  He  was  challenged  on  this  ground,  when  the  court 
proceeded  to  examine  him  at  length  and  finally  asked  him  this  question  : 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  your  convictions  as  to  what  the  evidence  proved,  or  failed 
to  prove,  will  be  at  all  affeoted  by  what  anybody  at  all  said  or  wrote  about  that  matter 
before  ? 

A.  I  believe  they  would. 

The  court,  in  the  hearing  of  other  jurors  not  yet  examined,  exclaimed  :  "It  is 
incomprehensible  to  me."    This  j uror  was  excused.. 

B.  L.  Ames,  dealer  in  hats  and  caps,  stated  that  he  was  prejudiced  ;  had  formed 
and  expressed  his  opinions ;  still  held  them.  He  was  challenged  on  these  grounds. 
Then  tbe  oourt  examined  him  at  length  ;  tried  to  foroe  him  to  say  that  he  could  try  the 
case  fairly  without  regard  to  his  prejudice,  but  he  persisted  in  saying  in  answer  to  the 
court's  questions  that  he  did  not  believe  that  he  oould  sit  as  a  juror,  listen  to  the 
evidence  and  from  that  alone  make  up  his  mind  as  to  the  guilt  or  innooence  of  the 
defendants.  Thereupon  the  court,  in  the  presence  of  other  jurors  not  yet  examined, 
lectured  him  as  follows  : 

Why  not?  What  is  to  prevent  your  listening  to  the  evidence  and  acting  alone  upon  i.f  Why 
can't  you  listen  to  the  evidence  and  make  up  your  mind  on  it? 

Bat  the  juror  still  insisted  that  he  could  not  do  it,  and  was  discharged. 

H.  D.  Bogardus,  flour  merchant,  stated  that  he  had  read  and  talked  about  the  Hay- 
market  trouble  ;  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ;  still  held  it  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants  ;  that  he  was  prejudiced  :  that  this  prejudioe  would  certain- 
ly influence  his  verdict  if  selected  as  a  juror.  I  don't  believe  that  I  could  give  them  a  fair 
trial  upon  the  proof,  for  it  would  require  very  strong  proof  to  overcome  my  prejudice  I  hardly 
think  that  you  could  bring  proof  enough  to  change  my  opinion.  He  was  challenged  on  the 
ground  of  prejudice.  # 

Then  the  oourt  took  him  in  hand  and  after  a  lengthy  examination  got  him  to  say  : 
"I  think  I  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdiot  in  this  case  in  accordance  with 
the  law  and  the  evidence." 

Then  the  challenge  was  overruled. 

Counsel  for  defendants  then  asked  the  juror  further  questions  and  he  replied  : 

I  say  it  would  require  pretty  strong  testimony  to  overcome  my  opinion  at  the 
present  time ;  still,  I  think  I  could  aot  independent  of  my  opinion.  I  would  stand  by 
mv  opinion,  however,  and  I  think  the  preponderance  of  proof  would  have  to  be  strong 
toohange  my  opinion.    I  think  the  defendants  are  responsible  for  what  oooured  at  the 


-     9    — 

Haymarket  meeting.  The  preponderance  of  evidence  would  have  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
defendants'  innocenoe  with  me. 

Then  the  challenge  for  cause  was  renewed,  when  the  oonrt  remarked,  in  the  presence 
of  jurors  not  yet  examined  :  "Every  fairly  intelligent  and  honest  man  when  he  comes 
to  investigate  the  question  originally  for  himself,  upon  authentic  sources  of  information, 
will,  in  fact,  make  his  opinion  from  the  authentic  souroe,  instead  of  hearsay  that  he 
heard  before." 

The  court  then  proceeded  to  again  examine  the  juror,  and  as  the  juror  persisted  in 
saying  that  he  did  not  believe  he  could  give  the  defendants  a  fair  trial,  was  finally  dis- 
charged. 

These  examinations  are  fair  specimens  of  all  of  them,  and  show  conclusively  that 
Bailiff  Ryce  carried  out  the  threat  that  Mr.  Favor  swears  to.  Nearly  every  juror  called 
stated  that  he  had  read  and  talked  about  the  matter  and  believed  what  he  had  heard 
and  read,  and  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion,  and  still  held  it,  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innooence  of  the  defendants  ;  that  he  was  prejudiced  against  them  :.  that  that  prejudice 
was  deep-rooted  and  that  it  would  require  evidenoe  to  remove  that  prejudice. 

A  great  many  said  they  had  been  pointed  out  to  the  bailiff  by  their  employers  to  be 
summoned  as  jurors.  Many  stated  frankly  that  they  believed  the  defendants  to  be 
guilty  and  would  convict  unless  their  opinions  were  overcome  by  strong  proofs,  and 
almost  every  one  after  having  made  these  statements  was  examined  by  the  court  in  a 
manner  to  force  him  to  say  that  he  would  try  the  oase  fairly  upon  the  evidenoe  produced 
in  court,  and  whenever  he  was  brought  to  this  point  he  was  then  held  to  be  a  competent 
juror,  and  the  defendants  were  obliged  to  exhaust  their  challenges  on  men  who  declared 
in  open  court  that  they  were  prejudiced  and  believed  the  defenants  to  be  guilty. 

Twelve  5Ieu  Who  Tried  tbe  Case. 

The  twelve  jurors  whom  the  defendants  were  finally  foroed  to  accept,  after  their 
challenges  were  exhausted,  were  of  the  same  general  character  as  the  others,  and  a 
number  of  them  stated  candidly  that  they  were  so  prejudiced  that  they  could  not  try 
the  case  fairly,  but  each,  when  examined  by  the  court,  was  finally  induced  to  say  that 
he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  upon  the  evidence  that  was  produced  in  court 
alone.     For  example : 

Theodore  Denker,  one  of  the  twelve  :  "Am  shipping  clerk  for  Henry  W.  King  &  Go. 
I  have  read  and  talked  about  the  Haymarket  tradgedy  and  have  formed  and  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocenoe  of  the  defendants  of  the  crime  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment.    I  believe  what  I  read  and  heard,  and  still  entertain  that  opinion." 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  such  as  to  prevent  you  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in 
the  case  sitting  as  a  juror  under  the  testimony  and  the  law? 

A.     I  think  it  is. 

He  was  challenged  for  cause  on  ground  of  prejudice.  Then  the  state's  attorney  and 
the  court  examined  him  and  finally  got  him  to  say  that  he  believed  he  could  try  the  caje 
fairly  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and  the  challenge  was  overruled.  He  was  then 
asked  further  questions  by  the  defendants'  counsel  and  said  : 

"I  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  defendants,  and  have  expressed  it. 
We  conversed  about  the  matter  in  the  business  house  and  I  expressed  my  opiaion  there; 
expressed  my  opinion  quite  frequently.  My  mind  was  made  up  from  what  I  read  and 
did  not  hesitate  to  speak  about  it. " 

Q.  Would  you  feel  yourself  any  way  governed  or  bound  in  listening  to  the  testi- 
mony and  determining  it  upon  the  pre-judgment  of  the  case  that  you  had  expressed  to 
others  before  ? 

A.     Well,  that  is  a  pretty  hard  question  to  answer. 

He  then  stated  to  the  court  that  he  had  not  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of 
reports  he  had  read,  and  finally  stated  that  he  believed  he  could  try  the  oase  fairly  on  the 
evidence. 

John  B.  Greiner,  another  one  of  the  twelve  : 

Am  a  clerk  for  the  Northwestern  Railroad.  I  have  heard  and  read  about  the  killing 
of  Degan  at  the  Haymarket  on  May  4,  last,  and  have  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt 
or  innooence  of  the  defendants  now  on  trail  for  that  crime.  It  is  evident  that  the  defend- 
ants are  connected  with  that  affair  from  their  being  here. 

Q     You  regard  that  as  evidence  ? 


—     10    — 

A.  Well,  I  don't  know  exactly.  Of  course  I  would  expect  that  it  oonnected  them 
or  they  would  not  be  here. 

Q.  So,  then,  the  opinion  that  you  now  have  has  reference  to  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  some  of  these  men,  or  all  of  them  ? 

A.     Certainly. 

Q.  Now,  is  that  opinion  one  tliat  would  influence  your  verdict  if  you  slwuld  be  elected  as  a. 
juror  to  try  the  case  ? 

A.    1  certainly  think  it  would  affect  it  to  some  extent ;    Idonft  see  how  it  could  be  otherwise. 

He  further  stated  that  there  nad  not  been  a  strike  in  the  freight  department  of  the 
Northwestern  road  which  affected  the  department  he  was  in.  After  some  further 
examination  he  stated  that  he  thought  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  on  the  evidence,  and 
was  then  held  to  be  competent. 

G.  W.  Adams,  also  one  of  the  twelve  : 

Am  travelling  salesman;  have* been  an  employer  of  painters.  I  read  and  talked  about 
the  Haymarket  trouble  and  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
crime  committed  there.     I  conversed  frequently  with  my  friends  about  the  matter. 

Q.    Dn>    YOU   POEM  AN  OPINION   AT  THE   TIME   THAT   THE   DEFEEDANTS  WERE  CONNECTED 
WITH  OB  RESPONSIBLE  FOE  THE  COMMITTION  OF   THAT    CRIME  ? 
A.    I  THOUGHT  SOME  OF  THEM  WERE  INTERESTED  IN  IT,  YES. 

Q.  And  you  still  think  so  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Nothing  has  transpired  in  the  interval  to  change  your  mind  at  all, 

SUPPOSE? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  some  of  them ;  that  is,  in  the  newspaper  accounts  that  you  read,  the 
names  of  some  of  the  defendants  were  referred  to  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

After  further  examinations  he  testified  that  he  thought  he  could  try  the  case  fairly 
on  the  evidence. 

H.  T.  Sandford,  another  one  of  the  twelve;  clerk  for  the  Northwestern  Railroad,  in 
the  freight  auditor's  office. 

Q.  Have  you  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  to 
the  murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan. 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  From  all  that  you  have  heard  and  that  you  have  read,  have  you  an  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  of  the  throwing  of  that  bomb  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  a  prejudice  against  socialists  and  communists  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  a  decided  prejudice. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  that  prejudice  would  influence  your  verdict  in  this  case? 

A.  Well,  as  I  know  so  little  about  it,  it  is  a  hard  question  to  answer,  I  have  an 
opinion  in  my  own  mind  that  the  defendants  encouraged  the  throwing  of  that  bomb. 

Challenged  for  cause  on  account  of  prejudice. 

On  further  examination,  stated  he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  upon  the 
evidence,  and  the  challenge  for  cause  was  overruled. 

Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  considering  the  facts  brought  to  light  since  the  trial,  as 
well  as  the  record  of  the  trial  and  the  answers  of  the  jurors  as  given  therein,  it 
is  clearly  shown  that  while  the  oounsel  for  defendants  agreed  to  it  Eyce  was  appointed 
speoial  bailiff  at  the  suggestion  of  the  state's  attorney  and  that  he  did  summon  a  pre- 
judiced  jury,  which  he  believed  would  hang  the  defendats,  and  further,  that  the  fact  that 
Rvce  was  summoning  only  that  kind  of  men  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  court 
before  the  panel  was  full  and  it  was  asked  to  stop  it,  but  refused  to  pay  any  attention  to 
the  matter  and  permitted  Ryoe  to  go  on  and  then  foroed  the  defendants  to  go  to  trial 
before  this  j  ary. 

While  no  collusion  is  proved  between  the  judge  and  state's  attorney,  it  is  clearly 
shown  that  after  the  verdict  and  while  the  motion  for  a  new  trial  was  pending  a  charge 
was  filed  in  court  that  Ryce  had  packed  the  jury  and  that  the  attorney  for  the  state  got 
Mr.  Favor  to  refuse  to  make  an  affidavit  bearing  on  this  point,  which  the  defendants 
could  use,  and  then  the  oourt  refused  to  take  any  notice  of  it  unless  the  affidavit  was  ob- 
tained, although  it  was  informed  that  Mr.  Favor  would  not  make  an  affidavit,  but  stood 


—    11   — 

ready  to  oome  into  court  and  make  a  full  statement  if  the  court  desired  him  to  do  so. 
These  facts  alone  would  call  for  exeoutive  interference,  especially  as  Mr.  Favor's 
affidavit  was  not  before  the  supreme  court  at  the  time  it  considered  the  case. 

Supreme  Court  on  Juror's  Competency. 

2.  The  second  point  urged  seems  to  me  to  be  equally  conclusive.  In  the  case  of 
the  People  vs.  Coughlin,  known  as  the  Cronin  case,  recently  decided,  the  supreme  court, 
in  a  remarkably  able  and  comprehensive  review  of  the  law  on  this  subject,  says  among 
other  things : 

"The  holding  of  this  and  other  courts  is  substantially  uniform,  that  where  it  is  once 
clearly  shown  that  there  exists  in  the  mind  of  the  juror  at  the  time  ne  is  oalled  to  the 
jury  box  a  fixed  and  positive  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  or  ts  ;o  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendant  he  is  called  to  try,  his  statement  that,  notwithstanding  such 
opinion,  he  can  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  evidence, 
has  little,  if  any,  tendency  to  establish  his  impartiality.  This  is  so  Deoause  a  juror  who 
has  sworn  to  have  in  his  mind  a  fixed  and  positive  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  inooence  of 
the  accused  is  not  impartial,  as  a  matter  of  fact.  *  *  * 

"It  is  difficult  to  see  how,  after  a  juror  has  avowed  a  fixed  and  settled  opinion  as  to 
the  prisoner's  guilt,  a  court  can  be  legally  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  his  answer  that  he  can 
render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  or  find  therefrom  that  he  has  the  qualification  of  im- 
partiality, as  required  by  the  constitution.  *  *  * 

"Under  such  circumstances  it  is  idle  to  inquire  of  the  jurors  whethei  they  can  return 
just  and  impartial  verdicts.  The  more  clear  and  positive  were  their  impressions  of  guilt, 
the  more  certain  they  may  be  that  they  jean  act-impartially  in  condemning  the  guilty 
party.  They  go  into  the  box  in  a  state  of  mind  that  is  well  calculated  to  give  a  oolor  of 
guilt  to  all  the  evidence,  and  if  the  accused  escapes  conviction  it  will  not  be  because  the 
evidence  has  not  established  gnilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  but  because  an  accused 
party  condemned  in  advance,  and  oalled  upon  to  exculpate  himself  before  a  prejudiced 
tribunal,  has  succeeded  in  doing  so.  *  *  * 

"To  try  a  cause  by  such  a  jury  is  to  authorize  men,  who  state  that  they  will  lean  in 
their  finding  against  one  of  the  parties,  unjustly  to  determine  the  rights  or  others,  and 
it  would  be  no  difficult  task  to  predict,  even  before  the  evidence  was  heard,  the  verdict 
that  would  be  rendered.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  instructions  from  the  court  would 
correct  the  bias  of  the  jurors  who  swear  they  incline  in  favor  of  one  of  the  litigants.*  *  * 

"Bontecou  (one  of  the  jurors  in  the  Cronin  case),  it  is  true,  was  brought  to  make 
answer  that  he  could  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and 
the  evidence,  but  that  result  was  reached  only  after  a  singularly  argumentative  and  per- 
suasive crossexamination  by  the  court,  in  which  the  right  of  every  person  acoused  of 
crime  to  an  impartial  trial  and  to  the  presumption  of  innocence  until  proved  guilty 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  and  the  duty  of  every  citizen  when  summoned  as  a  juror  to 
lay  aside  all  opinions  and  prejudices  and  accord  the  accused  such  trial,  was  set  forth  and 
descanted  upon  at  length,  and  in  which  the  intimation  was  very  clearly  made  that  a 
juror  who  could  not  do  this  was  recreant  to  his  duty  as  a  man  and  a  citizen.  Under 
pressure  of  this  sort  of  cross-examination  Bontecou  seems  to  have  been  finally  brought 
to  make  answer  in  such  way  as  to  profess  an  ability  to  sit  as  an  impartial  juror  and  on 
his  so  answering  he  was  pronounced  competent,  and  the  challenge  as  to  him  was  over- 
ruled. Whatever  may  be  the  weight  ordinarily  due  to  statements  of  this  character  by 
jurors,  their  value  as  evidence  is  in  no  small  degree  impaired  in  this  case  by  the  mode 
in   which   they  were,  in  a  certain  sense,   forced  from  the  mouth  of  the  juror.    The 

THEORY  SEEMED  TO  BE,  THAT  LP  A  JUROR  COULD  IN  ANY  WAY  BE  BROUGHT  TO  ANSWER  THAT 
HE  COULD  SIT  AS  AN  IMPARTIAL  JUEOR,  THAT  DECLARATION  OF  ITSELF  RENDERED  HIM  COM- 
PETENT.    Such  a  view,   if  n  was  entertained,  was  a  total  misconception  of  the 

LAW.       *      *      * 

"It  requires  no  profound  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  know  that  with  ordinary 
men  opinions  and  prejudices  are  not  amenable  to  the  power  of  the  will,  however  honest 
the  intention  of  the  party  may  be  to  put  them  aside.  They  are  likely  to  remain  in  the 
minds  of  the  juror  in  spite  of  all  his  efforts  to  get  rid  of  them,  warping  and  giving 
direction  to  his  judgment,  ooloring  the  facts  as  they  are  developed  by  the  evidenoe  and 
exerting  an  influence,  more  or  less  potent,  though  it  be  unconsciously  to  the  juror  him- 
self, on  the  final  result  of  his  deliberations.    To  compel  a  person  accused  of  a  cbime 


—    12    — 
TO  BE  TBIED  BY  A  JUBOB  WHO  HAS  PBEJUDICED    HIS    CASE   IS  NOT  TO  GIVE  TTTM  A  FAIB  TRIAL. 

Nor  should  a  defendant  be  compelled  to  rely,  as  his  security  for  the  impartiality  of  the 
iurors  by  whom  he  is  to  be  tried,  upon  the  restraining  and  controlling  influenoe  upon 
the  juror's  mind  of  his  oath  to  render  a  true  verdict  aocording  to  the  law  and  the 
evidence.  His  impartiality  should  appear  before  he  is  permitted  to  take  the  oath.  If  he 
is  not  impartial  then  his  oath  cannot  be  relied  upon  to  make  him  so.  In  the  terse  and 
expressive  language  of  Lord  Ooko,  already  quoted,  the  juror  should  "stand  indefferent 
as  he  stands  unsworn." 

Incompetent  Because  Not  Impartial. 

Applying  the  law  as  here  laid  down  in  the  Oronin  case  to  the  answers  of  the  jurors 
above  given  in  the  present  case,  it  is  very  apparent  that- most  of  the  jurors  were  in- 
competent because  they  were  not  impartial.  For  nearly  all  of  them  candidly  stated  that 
they  were  prejudiced  against  the  defendants  and  believed  them  guilty  before  hearing 
the  evidence,  and  the*  mere  fact  that  the  judge  succeeded  by  a  singularly  suggestive 
examination  in  getting  them  to  state  that  they  believed  they  could  try  the  case  fairly  on 
the  evidence  did  not  make  them  competent. 

It  is  true  that  this  case  was  before  the  supreme  court,  and  that  court  allowed  the 
verdict  to  stand,  and  it  is  also  true  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  court  in 
the  Oronin  case  an  effort  is  made  to  distinguish  that  case  from  this  one,  but  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  court  did  not  have  the  record  of  this  case  before  it  when  it  tried  to  make 
the  distinction,  and  the  opinion  of  the  minority  of  the  court  in  the  Oronin  case  expressly 
refers  to  this  case  as  being  exactly  like  that  one,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  competency  of 
the  jurors.  The  answers  of  the  jurors  were  almost  identical  and  the  examinations  were 
the  same.  The  very  things  which  the  supreme  court  held  to  be  fatal  errors  in  the 
Oronin  case  constituted  the  entire  fabrio  of  this  case  so  far  as  relates  to  the  competency 
of  the  jury.  In  fact,  the  trial  judge  in  the  Oronin  case  was  guided  by  the  rule  laid 
down  in  this  case,  yet  the  supreme  court  reversed  the  Oronin  case  beoause  two  of  the 
jurors  were  held  to  be  incompetent,  eaoh  having  testified  that  he  had  read  and  talked 
about  the  case  and  had  formsd  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  de- 
fendants; that  he  was  prejudiced;  that  he  believed  what  he  had  read  and  that  his 
prejudice  might  influenoe  his  verdict;  that  his  prejudice  amounted  to  a  conviction  oh 
the  subject  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defentants,  but  eaoh  finally  said  that  he 
could  and  would  try  the  case  fairly  on  the  evidence  alone  etc. 

A  carefull  comparison  of  the  examination  of  these  two  jurors  with  that  of  many  of  the 
jurors  in  this  case  shows  that  a  number  of  the  jurors  in  this  case  expressed  themselves, 
if  anything,  more  strongly  against  the  defentants  than  those  two  did,  and,  what  is 
still  more,  one  of  those  summoned,  M.  D.  Flavin,  in*  this  case  testified,  not  only  that 
he  had  read  and  talked  about  the  case  and  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  that  he  was  bitterly  prej  udiced,  but  further, 
that  he  was  related  to  one  of  the  men  who  was  killed  an  that  for  that  reason  he  felt 
more  strongly  against  the  defendants  than  he  otherwise  might,  yet  he  was  held  to  be 
competent  on  his  mere  statement  that  he  believed  he  could  try  the  case  fairly  on  the 
evidence. 

No  matter  what  the  defendants  were  charged  with,  they  were  entitled  to  a  fair 
trial,  and  no  greater  danger  could  possibly  threaten  our  institutions  than  to  have  the 
eourts  of  justice  run  wild  or  give  way  to  popular 'clamor,  and  when  the  trial  judge 
in  the  case  ruled  that  a  relative  of  one  of  the  men  who  was  killed  was  a  competent 
juror,  and  this  after  the  man  had  candidly  stated  that  he  was  deeply  prejudiced  and 
that  his  relationship  caused  him  to  feel  more  strongly  than  he  otherwise  might,  and 
when  in  scores  of  instances  he  ruled  that  men  who  candidly  declared  that  they 
believed«the  defendants  to  be  guilty;  that  this  was  a  deep  conviction  and  would  in- 
flaenoe  their  verdict  and  that  it  would  require  ttrong  evidence  to  convince  them  that 
the  defendants*  were  innocent,  when  in  all  the  nstances  the  trial  judge  ruled  that 
these  men  were  competent  jurors  simply  because  they  had,  under  his  adroit  manipu- 
lation, been  led  to  say  that  they  believed  they  could  try  the  case  fairly  on  the  evi- 
dence; then  the  proceedings  lost  all  semblance  to  a  fair  trial. 

Does  the  Proof  Show  Guilt? 

3.  The  state  has  never  discovered  who  it  was  that  threw  the  bomb  which  killed  the 
policemen,  and  the  evidences  does  not  show  any  connection  whatever  between  the  de- 


-     13    — 

fendants  and  the  man  who  did  throw  it.  The  trial  judge  in  overruling  the  motion  for  a 
new  hearing,  and  again,  recently  in  a  magazine  article,  need  this  language: 

The  conviction  has  not  gone  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  have  actually 
any  personal  participation  in  the  particular  act  which  caused  the  death  of 
degan,  but  the  conviction  proceeds  upon  the  ground  that    they    had    generally. 

BY  SPEECH  AND  PRINT,  ADVISED  LARGE  CLASSES  OP  THE  PEOPLE,  NOT  PARTICULAR  INDI- 
VIDUALS, BUT  L4.RGE  CLASSES,  TO  COMMIT  MURDER,  AND  HAD  LEFT  THE  COMMISSION,  THE 
TIME  AND  PLACE  WHEN  TO  THE  INDIVIDUAL  WILL  AND  WHIM,  OR  CAPRICE,  OR  WHATEVER 
IT  MAY  BE  OF  EACH  INDIVIDUAL  MAN  WHO  LISTENED  TO  THEIR  ADVICE,  AND  THAT  IN 
CONSEQUENCE  OF  THAT  ADVICE,  Id  PURSUANCE  OF  THAT  ADVACB  AND  INFLUENCED  BY  THAT 
ADVICE  SOMEBODY  NOT  KNOWN  DID  THROW  THE  BOMB  THAT  CAUSED  DeGANS  DEATH.  NOW, 
IF  THIS  IS  NOT  A  CORRECT  PRINCIPLE  OF  THE  LAW,  THEN  THE  DEFENDANTS  ARE  ENTITLED 
TO  A  NEW  TRIAL,  THIS  CASE  IS  WITHOUT  PRECEDENT;  THERE  IS  NO  EXAMPLE  IN  THE  LAW 
BOOKS   OF  A   CASE   OF  THIS   SORT. 

The  judge  certainly  told  the  truth  when  he  stated  that  this  case  was  without  a  pre- 
cedent, and  that  no  example  could  be  found  in  the  law  books  to  sustain  the  law  as 
above  laid  down.  For,  in  all  centuries  during  which  government  has  been  maintained, 
among  men,  and  crime  has  been  punished,  no  judge  in  a  civilized  country  had  ever  laid 
down  such  a  rule  before.  The  petitioners  claim  that  it  was  laid  down  in  this  case 
simply  because  the  prosecution,  not  having  discovered  the  real  criminal,  would  other- 
wise not  have  been  able  to  convict  anybody;  that  this  course  was  then  taken  to  appease 
the  fury  of  the  public,  and  that  the  judgment  was  allowed  to  stand  for  the  same  reason. 
I  will  not  diacuss  this.  But,  taking  the  law  as  above  laid  down,  it  was  necessary  under 
it  to  prove,  and  that  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  person  oommitting  the  violent 
deed  had  at  least  heard  or  read  the  advice  given  to  the  masses,  for  until  he  either  heard 
or  read  it  he  did  not  receive  it,  and  if  he  did  not  receive  it  he  did  not  commit  the  violent 
aot  in  pursuance  of  that  advice,  and  it  is  here  that  the  case  for  the  state  fails,  with  all 
his  apparent  eagerness  to  force  conviotion  in  court  and  his  efforts  in  defending  his 
course  since  the  trial,  the  judge  speaking  on  this  point  in  his  magazine  article,  makes 
this  statement:  "It  is  probably  true,  that  Rudolph  Sohnaubelt  threw  the  bomb,"  which 
statement  is  a  mere  surmise  and  is  all  that  is  known  about  it,  and  is  certainly  not 
sufficient  to  convict  eight  men  on.  In  faot,  until  the  state  proves  from  whose  hands  the 
bomb  came  it  is  impossible  to  show  any  connection  between  the  man  who  threw  it  and 
these  defendants. 

It  is  further  shown  that  the  mass  of  matter  contained  in  the  record  and  quoted  at 
length  in  the  judge's  magazine  article,  showing  the  use  of  seditious  and  incendiary 
language,  amounts  to  but  little  when  its  source  is  considered;  the  two  papers  in  which 
articles  appeared  at  intervals  during  years  were  obscure  little  sheets  having  scarcely  any 
circulation,  and  the  articles  themselves  were  written  at  times  of  great  public  exitement, 
when  an  element  in  the  community  claimed  to  have  been  outraged;  and  the  same  is  true 
of  the  speeches  made  by  the  defendants  and  others;  the  apparently  seditious  utteranoes 
were  such  as  are  always  heard  when  men  imagine  that  they  havo  been  wronged  or  are 
excited  or  are  partially  intoxicated;  and  the  talk  of  a  gigantic  anarchistic  conspiracy  is 
not  believed  by  the  then  chief  of  police,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter,  and  it  is  not  entitled 
to  serious  notice,  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  while  Chicago  had  nearly  a  million  in- 
habitants, the  meetings  held  on  the  lake  front  on  Sunday  during  the  summer  by  these 
agitators  rarely  had  fifty  people  present,  and  most  of  these  went  from  mere  curiosity, 
while  the  meetings  held  indoors  during  the  winter  were  still  smaller.  The  meetings  held 
from  time  to  time  by  the  masses  of  the  laboring  people  must  not  be  confounded  with 
the  meetings  above  named,  although  in  times  of  excitement  and  trouble  much  violent 
talk  was  indulged  in  by  irresponsible  parties,  which  was  forgottea  when  the  excitement 
was  cover. 

Again,  it  is  shown  here  that  the  bomb  was  in  all  probability  thrown  by  some  one  seek- 
ing personal  revenge;  that  a  course  had  been  pursued  by  the  authorities  which  would 
naturally  cause  this;  that  for  a  number  of  years  prior  to  the  Haymarket  affair  there  had 
been  labor  troubles  and  in  several  cases  a  number  of  laboring  people  guilty  of  no  offense 
had  been  shot  down  in  cold  blood  by  Pinkerton  men  and  none  of  the  murderers  were 
brought  to  justice.  The  evidence  taken  at  coroner's  inquests  and  presented  here  shows 
that  in  at  least  two  cases  men  were  fired  on  and  killed  when  they  were  running  away 
and  there  was  consequently  no  occasion  to  shoot,  yet  nobody  was  punished;  that  in 


—     14    — 

Chicago  there  had  been  a  number  of  strikes  in  which  some  of  the  police  not  only  took 
sides  against  the  men,  but  without  any  authority  of  law  invaded  and  broke  up  peaceable 
meetings,  and  in  scores  of  oases  brutally  clubbed  people  who  were  guilty  of  no  offense 
whatever.  Reference  is  made  to  the  opinion  of  the  late  Judge  McAllister  in  the  case  of 
the  Harmonia  Association  of  Joiners  against  Brennan  et  al.,  reported  in  the  Chicago 
Legal  News. 

Jndge  Ale  A  Ulster's  Opinion. 

Among  other  things,  Judge  McAllister  says; 

"The  facts  established  by  a  large  number  of  witnesses,  and  without  any  opposing 
evidence  are,  that  this  society,  having  leased  Turner  Hall  on  West  Twelfth  street  for  the 
purpose,  held  a  meeting  in  the  forenoon  of  said  day  in  said  hall,  oomposed  of  from  200 
to  300  individuals,  most  of  whom  were  journeymen  cabinet  makers  engaged  in  the 
several  branohes  of  the  manufacture  of  furniture  in  Ohicago,  but  some  of  those  in 
attendance  were  the  proprietors  in  that  business  or  delegates  sent  by  them.  The  object 
of  the  meeting  was  to  obtain  a  conference  of  the  journeymen  with  such  proprietors  or 
their  authorized  delegates  with  the  view  of  endeavoring  to  secure  an  increase  of  the 
price  or  the  diminution  of  the  hours  of  labor.  The  attendants  were  wholly  unarmed 
and  orderly,  and  while  the  people  were  sitting  quietly  with  their  backs  toward  the 
entrance  hall,  with  a  few  persons  on  the  stage  in  front  of  them,  and  all  engaged  merely 
in  the  business  for  which  they  had  assembled,  a  force  of  from  fifteen  to  twenty  polioe- 
men  came  suddenly  into  the  hall,  having  a  policeman's  club  in  one  hand  and  a  revolver 
in  the  other,   and  making  no  pause  to  determine  the  actual  character  of  the  meeting, 

they  immediately  shouted:    'Get  out  of  here,  yon ,'  and  began  beating  the 

people  with  their  clubs,  some  of  them  actually  firing  their  revolvers.  One  young  man 
was  shot  through  the  back  of  the  head  and  killed.  Bat  to  complete  the  atrocity  of  the 
affair  on  the  part  of  the  officers  engaged  in  it,  when  the  people  hastened  to  make  their 
escape  from  the  assembly-room,  they  found  policemen  stationed  on  either  side  of  the 
stairway  leading  from  the  hall  down  to  the  street,  who  applied  their  clubs  to  them  as 
they  passed,  seemingly  with  all  the  violance  practicable  under  the  circumstances. 

"Jacob  Beiersdorf,  who  was  a  manufacturer  of  furniture  employing  some  200  men, 
had  been  invited  to  the  meeting  and  came,  but  as  he  was  about  to  enter  the  plaoe  where 
it  was  held,  an  inoffensive  old  man,  doing  nothing  unlawful,  was  stricken  to  the  ground 
at  his  feet  by  a  policeman's  club. 

"These  general  facts  were  established  by  an  overwhelming  mass  of  testimony  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  the  questions  in  the  case,  it  is  needless  to  go  iurther  into  the  detail. 

"The  chief  pohtioal  right  of  the  citizen  in  our  government,  based  upon  the  popular 
will  as  regulated  by  law,  is  the  right  of  suffrage,  but  to  that  right  two  others  are 
auxiliary  and  of  allmost  equal  importance: 

"1.  The  right  of  free  speech  and  of  a  free  press. 

'  '2.  The  right  of  the  people  to  assemble  in  a  peaceable  manner  to  consult  for  the 
common  good. 

"These  are  among  the  fundamental  principles  of  government  and  guaranteed  by  our 
constitution.     Section  17,  article  2,  of  the  bill  of  rights,  declares: 

"The  people  have  a  right  to  assemble  in  a  peaceable  manner  to  consult  for  the  com- 
mon good,  to  make  known  their  opinions  to  their  representatives  and  apply  for  redress 
of  grievances. 

"Jurists  do  not  regard  these  declarations  of  the  bill  of  rights  as  creating  or  conferring 
the  rights,  but  as  guarantees  against  their  deprivation  or  infringement  by  any  of  the 
powers  or  agencies  of  the  government.  The  rights  themselves  are  regarded  as  the 
natural  inalienable  rights  belonging  to  every  individual,  or  as  political,  and  based  upon 
or  arising  from  principles  inherent  in  the  very  nature  of  a  system  of  free  government. 

"The  right  of  the  people  to  assemble  in  a  peaceable  manner  to  consult  for  the  com- 
mon good  being  a  constitutional  right,  it  can  be  exercised  and  enjoyed  within  the  scope 
and  spirit  of  that  provision  of  the  constitution,  independently  of  every  other  power  of 
the  state  government. 

"Judge  Oooley,  in  his  excellent  work  on  "Torts,"  speaking  (p.  296)  of  remedies  for 
the  invasion  of  politioal  rights,  says : 

"When  a  meeting  for  any  lawful  purpose  is  aotually  called  and  held  one  who  goes 
there  with  the  purpose  to  disturb  and  break  it  up  and  oommits  disorder  to  that  end  is  a 


-    15    — 

tresspasser  upon  the  rights  of  those  -who,  for  the  time,  have  the  control  of  the  place  of 
meeting.    If  several  unite  in  the  disorder  it  may  be  a  criminal  riot." 

So  much  for  Judge  McAllister. 

Now  it  is  shown  that  no  attention  was  paid  to  the  judge's  decision;  that  peaceable 
meetings  were  invaded  and  broken  up  and  inoffensive  people  were  dabbed;  that  in  1885 
there  was  a  strike  at  the  MoOormiok  Reaper  f aotory  on  account  of  a  reduction  of  wages 
and  some  Finkerton  men,  while  on  their  way  there,  were  hooted  at  by  some  people  on 
the  street,  when  they  fired  into  the  crowd  and  fatally  wounded  several  people  who  had 
taken  no  part  in  any  disturbance;  that  four  of  the  Pinkerton  men  were  indicted  for  this 
murder  by  the  grand  jury,  but  that  the  proseouting  officers  apparently  took  no  interest 
in  the  case  and  allowed  it  to  be  continued  a  number  of  times,"until  the  witnesses  were 
worn  out  and  in  the  end  the  murderers  went  free;  that  after  this  there  was  a  strike  on 
the  West  Division  Street  Railway  and  that  some  of  the  police,  under  the  leadership  of 
Captain  John  Bonfield,  indulged  in  a  brutality  never  equaled  before;  that  even  small 
merchants  standing  on  their  own  doorsteps,  and  having  no  interest  in  the  strike  were 
clubbed,  then  hustled  into  patrol  wagons  and  thrown  into  prison  on  no  charge,  and  not 
even  booked;  that  a  petition,  signed  by  about  1,000  of  the  leading  citizens  living  on  and 
near  West  Madison  street,  was  sent  to  the  mayor  and  city  council,  praying  for  the  dis- 
missal of  Bonfield  from  the  force,  but  that  on  account  of  his  political  influence  he  was 
retained.  Let  me  say  here  that  the  charge  of  brutality  does  not  apply  to  all  of  the 
policemen  of  Ohicago.  There  are  many  able,  honest  and  conscientious  officers  who  do 
their  duty  quietly,  thoroughly  and  humanely. 

Instances  of  Police  Brutality  and  Crime. 

As  a  speoiment  of  the  many  papers  filed  in  this  connection,  I  will  give  the  follow- 
ing, the  first  being  from  the  officers  of  a  corporation  that  is  one  of  the  largest  employers 
in  Ohicago: 

Office  People's  Gas  Light  &  Coke  Co.,  Chicago,  Nov.  21,  1885.  To  the  Chaikman 
of  the  Commtttef,  Chicago  Teades  and  Labou  Assemblt,  Siei — In  response  to  the  re- 
quest of  your  committee  for  information  as  to  the  treatment  received  by  certain 
employes  of  this  company  at  the  hands  of  Captain  Bonfield  and  by  his  orders  during 
the  strike  of  the  Western  Division  Railway  Oompany's  employes  in  July  last,  you  are 
advised  as  follows: 

On  that  day  of  the  strike  in  which  there  was  apparently  an  indiscriminate  arresting 
of  persons  who  happened  to  be  up  on  Madison  street,  whether  connected  with  the 
disturbance  of  peace,  or  engaged  in  legitimate  business,  a  number  of  employees  of  this 
company  were  at  work  upon  said  street  near  Hoyne  avenue,  opening  a  trench  for  the 
king  of  gas  pipe. 

The  tool  box  of  the  employes  was  at  the  sontheast  corner  of  Hoyne  and  Madison 
streets.  As  the  men  assembled  for  labor  shortly  before  7  a.  m.  they  took  their  shovels 
and  tools  from  the  tool  box,  arranged  themselves  along  the  trench  preparatory  to  going 
to  work  when  the  hour  of  seven  should  arrive.  About  this  time  and  a  little  before  the 
men  began  to  work  a  crowd  of  men  not  employes  of  the  company,  came  surging  down 
the  street  from  the  west,  and  seizing  suoh  shovels  and  other  tools  of  the  men  as  lay 
upon  the  ground  and  about  the  box,  threw  more  or  less  of  the  loose  dirt,  which  had  be- 
fore been  taken  from  the  trench,  upon  the  track  of  the  railway  oompany.  About  this 
time  Captain  Bonfield  and  his  forces  appeared  upon  the  scene  and  began  apparently  an 
indiscriminate  arrest  of  persons.  Among  others  arrested  were  the  following  employes 
of  this  company:  Edward  Kane,  Mike  W.  Kirwin,  Dan  Diamond,  James  Hussey,  Dennis 
Murvay,  Patrick  Brown  and  Pat  tfraney.  No  one  of  these  persons  had  any  connection 
with  the  strike,  or  were  guilty  of  obstructing  the  cars  of  the  railway  oompany,  or  of  any 
disturbance  upon  the  street.  Mr.  Kirwin  had  just  arrived  at  the  tool  box  and  had  not 
yet  taken  his  shovel  preparatory  to  going  to  work,  when  he  was  arrested  while  standing 
by  the  box  and  without  resistance,  was  put  upon  a  street  car  as  a  prisoner.  When  upon 
the  car  he  called  to  a  friend  among  the  workmen,  saying,  '  'take  care  of  my  shovel. '' 
Thereupon  Bonfield  struck  him  a  violent  blow  with  a  club  upon  his  head,  inflicting  a 
serious  wound,  laying  open  his  scalp,  and  saying  as  he  did  so,  "I  will  shovel  you,"  or 
words  to  that  effect.  Another  of  the  said  employes,  Edward  Kane,  was  also  arrested  by 
the  tool  box,  two  of  the  police  seizing  him,  one  by  each  arm,  and  he  was  being  put 
upon  the  oar,  a  third  man,  said  by  Kane  and  others  to  be  Bonfield,  struck  him  with  a 


—    16    —  v 

olnb  upon  the  head,  Beverly  outting  his  head.  Both  of  these  men,  with  blood  8treMmng 
from  the  outs  upon  their  heads,  respectively,  as  also  all  of  the  others  above  nam©d  | 
were  hustled  oft  to  the  polioe  station  and  looked  up.  The  men  were  not  "booked  'as 
thev  were  locked  up,  and  their  friends  had  great  difficulty  in  finding  them,  80  that  bail 
might  be  offered  and  they  released.  After  they  were  found  communication  with  them 
was  denied  for  some  time  by  Bonfield's  order,  as  was  said,  and  for  several  hours  they 
were  keptia  confinement  in  the  lock-up  upon  Desplaines  street  as  criminals,  when  their 
friends  were  desirous  of  getting  them  out.  Subsequently  they  were  all  brought  up  for 
trial  before  Justice  White.  Upon  the  hearing  the  city  was  represented  by  its  attorney, 
Bonfield  himselt  being  present,  and  from  the  testimony  it  appeared  that  all  these  men 
had  been  arrested  under  the  ciroumstanoes  aforesaid  and  without  the  least  cause,  and 
that  Kane  and  Kirwin  had  been  oruelly  assaulted  and  beaten  without  the  least  justifi- 
cation therefor,  and,  of  course,  they  were  all  discharged. 

The  officers  of   this   oompany,  who   are  cognizant  of  the  outrages  perpetrated 
upon  these  men,  feel  that  the  party  by  whom  the  same  were  committed  ought  not 
to  remain  in  a  responsible  position  upon  the  police  foroe. 
A  People's  Gas  Light  and  Coke  Company,  By  0.  K.  G.  Billings,  V.  P. 

Chicago,  Nov.  19,  1885.  Eobebt  Ellis,  974  West  Madison  street:— I  kept  a 
market  at  974  West  Madison  street.  I  was  in  my  place  of  business  waiting  on  customers 
and  stepped  to  the  door  to  get  a  measure  of  vegetables.  The  first  thing  I  knew,  as  I 
Btood  on  the  Btep  in  front  of  my  store,  I  received  a  blow  over  the  shoulders  with  a  club 
and  was  seized  and  thrown  off  the  sidewalk  into  a  ditch  being  dug  there.  I  had  my 
back  to  the  person  who  struck  me,  but  on  regaining  my  feet  I  saw  that  is  was  Bonfield 
who  had  assaulted  me.  Two  or  three  officers  then  came  up.  I  told  them  not  to  hit  me 
again.  They  said  go  and  get  in  the  car,  and  I  told  them  I  couldn't  leave  my  place  of 
business  as  I  was  all  alone  there.  They  asked  Bonfield  and  he  said,  "Take  him  right 
along."  They  then  shoved  me  into  the  car  and  took  me  down  the  street  to  a  patrol 
wagon,  in  which  I  was  taken  to  the  Lake  street  station.  I  was  looked  up  there  from 
this  time,  about  8  o'clock  in  the  morning  till  8  o'clock  in  the  evening  and  then  taken  to 
the  Desplaines  street  station.  I  was  held  there  a  short  time  and  then  gave  bail  for  my 
appearance,  and  got  baok  to  my  place  of  business  about  9  o'clock  that  night.  Sub- 
sequently when  I  appeared  in  court  I  was  discharged.  It  was  about  8  o'olook  in  the 
morning,  July  3,  1885,  when  I  was  taken  from  my  place  of  business. 

Kobebt  Ellis. 

Chicago,  Nov.  19,  1885.— I  was  standing  in  my  door  about  7  o'clock  in  the 
morning  of  July  3,  1885.  I  saw  a  man  standing  on  the  edge  of  the  sidewalk.  He 
wasn't  doing  anything  at  all.  Bonfield  came  up  to  him  and  without  a  word  being 
said  by  either,  Bonfield  hit  him  over  the  head  with  his  club  and  knocked  him 
down.  He  also  hit  him  twice  after  he  had  fallen.  I  was  standing  about  six  feet  from 
them  when  the  assault  occured.  I  don't  know  the  man  that  was  clubbed — never  saw 
him  before  nor  since.  W.  W.  Wyman, 

^  1004  West  Madison  street. 

Chicago,  Nov.  20,  1885.— On  the  morning  of  July  3,  1885,  about  7  o'clock,  as  I  was 
standing  on  the  southeast  corner  of  Madison  street  and  Western  avenue  I  saw  Bonfield 
walk  up  to  a  man  on  the  opposite  corner,  who  was  apparently  looking  on  at  what  was 
going  on  in  the  street.  Bonfield  hit  him  over  the  head  with  his  club  and  knocked  him 
down.  Some  men  who  were  near  him  helped  him  over  to  the  drug  store  on  the  corner 
where  I  was  standing.  His  face  was  oovered  with  blood  from  the  wound  on  his  head 
made  by  Bonfield's  club,  and  he  appeared  to  be  badly  hurt.  A  few  moments  later,  as  I 
was  standing  in  the  same  place,  almost  touching  elbows  with  another  man,  Bonfield 
came  up  faomg  us  and  said  to  us,  "stand  baok,"  at  the  same  time  striking  the  other  man 
over  the  head  with  his  club.  I  stepped  baok  and  turned  around  to  look  for  the  other 
man;  saw  him  a  few  feet  away  with  the  blood  running  down  over  bis  face  apparently 
badly  hurt  from  the  effects  of  the  blow  or  blows  he  had  received  from  Bonfield.  There 
was  no  riot  or  disorderly  conduct  there  at  this  time,  except  what  Bonfield  made  himself 
by  clubbing  innocent  people  who  where  taking  no  part  in  the  strike.  If  they  had  been 
for  the  purpose  of  rioting  they  would  surely  have  resisted  Bonfield's  brutality.  <$ 
I  affirm  that  the  above  statement  is  a  true  and  correct  statement  of  facts. 

Jesse  Cloud.  998  Monioe  street. 


-    17    — 

Chicago,  Nov.  19,  1885:— On  the  morning  of  July  3,  1885,  I  was  driving  up  Madison 
street  just  coming  from  Johnson's  bakery  on  Fifth  avenue.  When  I  got  to  the  corner 
of  Market  and  Madison  streets  I  met  the  oars  coming  over  the  bridge.  On  looking  out 
of  my  wagon  I  saw  Bonneld  by  the  side  of  a  car.  He  snatched  me  from  my  wagon  and 
struck  me  on  the  head,  outting  it  open,  and  put  me  in  a  oar,  leaving  my  wagon  unpro- 
tected, loaded  with  bakery  goods,  all  of  which  were  stolen  except  a  few  loaves  of  bread. 
I  was  then  taken  to  the  Desplaines  street  station  and  locked  up  for  about  ten  hours.  I 
was  then  bound  over  for  riot  in  $500  bail  and  released.  During  the  time  I  was  there  I 
received  no  attention  of  any  kind,  though  my  head  was  seriously  out.  Julius  Goldzier, 
my  lawyer,  went  to  Bonneld  with  me  before  the  case  was  called  in  oourt  and  told  him  I 
hnd  done  nothing,  and  Bonneld  said,  "scratoh  his  name  off,"  and  I  was  released. 

I  swear  to  the  truth  of  the  above. 

H.  J.  Nichols, 
47  Flournoy  street. 

The  following  is  from  Captain  Schaak,  a  very  prominent  police  offioial : 

Department  op  Police,  City  op  Chicago.  Chicago,  III.,  Mat  4,  1893.  G.  E, 
Detwtleb,  Editor  Rights  of  Lajbob.  Deaji  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  communication  of 
April  13,  I  will  say  that  in  July,  1885,  in  the  street  oar  strike  on  the  west  side,  I  held 
the  office  of  lieutenant  on  the  force.  I  was  detailed  with  a  company  of  officers  early  in 
the  morning  in  the  vicinity  of  the  oars  barns,  I  believe  on  Western  avenue  and  a  little 
north  of  Madison  street.  My  orders  were  to  see  that  the  new  men  on  the  oars  were  not 
molested  when  ooming  out  of  the  barn. 

One  man  oame  out  and  passed  my  lines  about  fifty  feet.  I  saw  one  of  the  men, 
either  driver  or  conductor,  leave  the  car  at  a  standstill.  I  ran  up  near  to  the  car,  when 
I  saw  on  the  southeast  corner  of  the  street  Bonfield  strike  a  man  on  the  head  with  his 
olub.    He  bit  the  man  twice  and  I  saw  the  man  fall  to  the  ground. 

Afterwards  I  was  put  on  a  train  of  cars,  protecting  the  rear.  Bonfield  had  oharge 
of  the  front.  I  saw  many  people  getting  olubbed  in  the  front  of  the  train,  but  I  held 
my  men  in  the  rear  and  gave  orders  not  to  strike  anyone  except  they  were  struck  first. 
Not  any  of  my  officers  hurt  a  person  on  that  day  or  at  any  time. 

Many  people  were  arrested,  all  appearing.  From  what  I  saw  in  the  afternoon  and 
the  next  day  no  officer  could  state  what  they  were  arrested  for.  The  officers  professed 
ignorance  of  having  any  evidence,  but  "someone  told  them  to  take  him  in,"  meaning  to 
look  him  up.  On  that  afternoon,  about  4  o'olook,  I  met  Bonneld  and  he  addressed  me  in 
the  following  words,  in  great  anger:  "If  some  of  you  goody-goody  fellows  had  used  your 
clubs  more  freely  in  the  forenoon  you  would  not  need  to  use  lead  this  afternoon. "  I 
told  him  that  I  did  not  see  any  use  for  clubbing  people  and  I  would  olub  no  person  to 
please  anyone,  meauing  Bonfield,  and  that  if  lead  had  to  be  used,  I  thought  my  officers 
could  give  lead  and  take  it  also.     I  will  say  that  affair  was  brutal  and  uncalled  for. 

Michael  J.  Schaack, 

227  North  State  street. 

Again  it  is  shown  that  various  attempts  were  made  to  bring  to  justice  the  men  who 
wore  the  uniform  of  the  law  while  violating  it,  but  all  to  no  avail;  that  the  laboring 
people  found  the  prisons  always  open  to  receive  them,  but  the  courts  of  justioe  wero 
practically  closed  to  them;  that  the  prosecuting  officers  vied  with  each  other  in  hunting 
them  down,  but  were  deaf  to  their  appeals;  that  in  the  spring  of  1886  there  were  more 
labor  disturbances  in  the  oity  and  particularly  at  the  McCormick  factory;  that  under  the 
leadership  of  Captain  Bonfield  the  bru  tali  ties  of  the  previous  year  were  even  exceeded. 
Some  affidavits  and  other  evidence  is  offered  on  this  point  which  I  cannot  give  for  want 
of  space.  It  appears  that  this  was  the  year  of  the  eight  hour  agitation  and  efforts  were 
made  to  secure  an  eight  hour  day  about  May  1,  and  that  a  number  of  laboring  men 
standing,  not  on  the  street  but  on  a  vaoant  lot,  were  quietly  discussing  the  situation  in 
regard  to  the  movement  when  suddenly  a  large  body  of  police  under  orders  from  Bon- 
field charged  on  them  and  began  to  olub  them;  that  some  of  the  men,  angered  at  the  un- 
provoked assault,  at  first  resisted,  but  were  soon  dispersed;  that  some  of  the  polioe  fired 
on  the  men  while  they  were  running  and  wounded  a  large  number  who  were  already  100 
feet  or  more  away  and  were  running  as  fast  as  they  could ;  that  at  least  four  of  the 
number  so  shot  down  died;  that  this  was  wanton  and  unprovoked  murder,  but  there  was 
not  even  so  much  as  an  investigation. 


—    18    — 

Now  while  some  men  may  tamely  submit  to  being  clubbed  and  seeing  their  broth- 
ers shot  down  there  are  some  who  will  resent  it  and  will  nurture  a  spirit  of  hatred  and 
seek  revenge  for  themselves,  and  the  occurrences  that  preceded  the  Haymarket  tragedy 
indioate  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  by  some  one  who,  instead  of  acting  on  the 
advice  of  anybody,  was  seeking  simply  personal  revenge  for  having  been  clubbed,  and 
that  Captain  Bonfield  is  the  man  who  is  really  responsible  for  the  death  of  the  police 
officers.  It  is  also  shown  that  the  character  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  sustains  this 
view;  that  the  evidence  proves  there  were  only  800  to  1,000  people  present  and  that  it 
was  a  peaceable  and  orderly  meeting;  that  the  mayor  of  the  city  was  present  and  saw 
nothing  out  of  the  way  and  that  he  remained  until  the  crowd  began  to  disperse,  the 
meeting  being  practically  over,  and  the  orowd  engaged  in  dispersing  when  he  left;  that 
had  the  police  remained  away  for  twenty  minutes  more  there  would  have  been  nobody 
left  there,  but  as  soon  as  Bonfield  learned  that  the  mayor  had  left  he  could  not  resist  the 
temptation  to  have  some  more  people  clubbed  and  went  up  with  a  detachment  of  police 
to  disperse  the  meeting,  and  then  on  the  appearance  of  the  police  the  bomb  was  thrown 
by  some  unknown  person  and  several  innocent  and  faithful  officers,  who  were  simply 
obeying  an  uncalled  for  order  of  their  superior,  were  killed;  all  of  these  facts  tend  to 
show  the  improbability  of  the  theory  of  the  prosecution  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  as 
the  result  of  a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  the  defendants  to  commit  murder:  if  the  theory 
of  the  prosecution  were  correct  there  would  have  been  many  bombs  thrown,  and  the 
fact  that  only  one  was  thrown  shows  that  it  was  an  act  of  personal  revenge. 

It  is  further  shown  here  that  much  of  the  evidenoe  given  at  the  trial  was 
a  pure  farication ;  that  some  of  the  prominent  police  officials  in  their 
zeal  not  only  terrorized  ignorant  men  by  throwing  them  into  prison 
and  threatening  them  with  torture  if  they  refused  to  swear  to  anything  desired, 
but  that  they  offered  money  and  employment  to  those  who  would  consent  to  do  this. 
Further,  that  they  deliberately  planned  to  have  fictitious  conspiracies  formed  in  order 
that  they  might  get  the  glory  of  discovering  them.  In  addition  to  the  evidenoe  in  the 
record  of  some  witnesses  who  swore  that  they  had  been  paid  small  sums  of  money,  etc, 
several  documents  are  here  referred  to. 

First,  an  interview  with  Captain  Ebersold  published  in  the  Chicago  Daily  News  May 
10,  1889.  Ebersold  was  chief  of  the  police  of  Ohioago  at  the  time  of  the  Haymarket 
(roubles  and  for  a  long  time  before  and  thereafter,  so  that  he  was  in  a  position  to  know 
what  was  going  on,  and  his  utterances  upon  this  point  are  therefore  important.  Among 
other  things  he  says : 

"It  was  my  policy  to  quiet  matters  down  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  4th  of  May. 
The  general  unsettled  state  of  things  was  an  injury  to  Ohioago. 

"On  the  other  hand,  Captain  Sohaaok  wanted  to  keep  tilings  stirring.  He  wanted 
bombs  to  be  found  here,  there,  all  arround,  everywhere.  1  thought  people  would  lie 
down  and  sleep  better  if  they  were  not  afraid  that  their  homes  would  be  blown  to  pieces 
any  minute.  But  this  man,  Sohaaok,  this  little  boy  who  must  have  glory  or  his  heart 
would  be  broken,  wanted  none  of  that  polioy.  Now,  here  is  something  the  public  does 
not  know.  After  we  got  the  anarchist  societies  broken  up  Sohaaok  wanted  to  send  out  men  to 
again  organize  new  societies  rigt  away.  You  see  what  this  would  do.  He  wanted  to  keep  the 
thing  boiling,  keep  himself  prominent  before  the  public.  Well,  I  sat  down  on  that,  I  didn't 
like  it. 

"After  I  heard  all  that  I  began  to  think  there  was"perhaps  not  so  much  to  all 

THIS  ANARCHIST  BUSINESS  AS  THEY  CLAIMED  AND  I  BELIEVE  I  WAS  RIGHT.       Sohaaok  thinks  he 

knew  all  about  those  anarchists.  Why,  I  knew  more  at  that  time  than  he  knows  to-day 
about  them.  I  was  following  them  closely.  As  soon  as  Sohaaok  began  to  get  some 
notoriety,  however,  he  was  spoiled." 

This  is  a  most  important  statement,  when  a  chief  of  police  who  has  been 
watching  the  anarchists  closely  says  that  he  was  convinced  that  there  was  not  so 
much  in  all  that  anarchist  business  as  was  claimed,  and  that  a  police  captain  wanted 
to  send  out  men  to  have  other  conspiracies  formed  in  order  to  get  the  credit  of 
discovering  them  and  keep  the  public  excited.  it  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
whole  situation  and  destroys  the  force  of  much  of  the  testimony  introduced  at  the 

TRIAL.  * 

For  if  there  had  been  any  such  extensive  conspiracy  as  the  proseoution  claims  the 
polioe  would  soon  have  discovered  it.     No  ohief  of  polioe  could  disoover  a  determination 


-     19    — 

on  the  part  of  an  individual,  or  even  of  a  number  of  separate  individuals,  to  have  per- 
sonal revenge  for  having  been  maltreated,  nor  could  any  chief  discover  a  determination 
by  any  such  individual  to  kill  the  next  policeman  who  might  assault  him.  Consequently, 
the  fact  that  the  police  did  not  discover  any  conspiracy  before  the  Haymarket  affair 
shows  almost  conclusively  that  no  such  extensive  combination  could  have  existed. 

As  further  bearing  on  the  question  of  creating  evidence  reference  is  made  to  the 
following  affidavits  : 
<  'STATE  OP  ILLINOIS,  » 

COTJTNY   OP  COOK.  j 

"Jacob  Mikolanda,  being  first  duly  sworn,  on  oath  states  that  he  took  no  part  in  the 
so-called  May  troubles  of  1886  ;  that  on  or  about  the  8th  day  of  May,  1886,  two  police 
officers,  without  a  varrant  or  without  assigning  any  reasons  therefor,  took  this  affiant 
from  a  saloon,  where  he  was  conducting  himself  peacefully,  and  obliged  him  to  accom- 
pany them  to  his  house ;  that  the  same  officers  entered  his  house  without  a  search  war- 
rant and  ransacked  the  same,  not  even  permitting  the  baby's  orib  with  its  sleeping 
occupant  to  escape  their  unlawful  and  fruitless  search  ;  that  in  about  a  month  after  this 
occurrence  this  affiant  was  summoned  by  Officer  Perceny  to  aocompany  him  to  the 
police  station,  as  Lieutenant  Shepard  wished  to  speak  to  him  ;  that  there  without  a  war- 
rant this  affiant  was  thrown  into  jail ;  that  he  was  thereupon  shown  some  photographs 
and  asked  if  he  knew  the  persons,  and  on  answering  to  the  affirmative  as  to  some  of  the 
piotures  he  was  again  thrown  into  prison,  that  he  was  then  transferred  from  one  station 
to  another  for  several  days ;  that  he  was  importuned  by  a  police  captain  and  assistant 
state's  attorney  to  turn  state's  witness,  being  promised  therefor  money,  the  good  will  and 
protection  of  the  police,  their  political  influence  in  securing  a  position  and  bis  entire 
freedom ;  that  on  answering  that  he  knew  nothing  to  which  he  could  testify  he  was 
thrown  baok  into  jail ;  that  his  preliminary  hearing  was  repeatedly  continued  for  want 
of  prosecution,  each  continuance  obliging  this  affiant  to  remain  longer  in  jail ;  that 
eventually  this  affiant  was  dismissed  for  want  of  prosecution.  Jacob  Mikolanda. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  14th  day  of  April,  A.  D.,  1893. 

Chables  B.  Pavlicek, 

Notary  Public. 
State  of  Illinois,  County  of  Cook,  ss: — Vaclav  Djmek,  being  first  duly  sworn,  on  oath 
states,  that  he  knows  of  no  cause  for  his  arrest  on  the  7th  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1886  ;  that 
he  he  took  no  part  in  the  troubles  of  the  preceding  days  ;  that  without  a  warrant  for  his 
arrest,  or  without  a  search  warrant  for  his  premises,  the  police  entered  his  house  on  the 
night  of  the  7th  day  of  May,  1886  ;  that  on  being  requested  to  show  by  what  authority 
they  entered,  the  police  heaped  abuse  upon  this  affiant  and  his  wife  ;  that  the  police 
then  proceeded  to  ransack  the  house,  roused  this  affiant's  little  children  out  of  bed, 
pulled  the  same  to  pieces,  carried  away  this  affiant's  papers  and  pillow  slips,  because 
the  same  were  red  :  that  on  the  way  to  the  police  station,  though  this  affiant  offered  no 
resistance  whatever  and  went  at  the  command  of  the  officer  peacefully,  this  affiant  was 
choked,  covered  with  revolvers  and  otherwise  inhumanly  treated  by  the  police  officers  ; 
that  for  many  days  this  affiant  was  jailed  and  refused  a  preliminary  hearing  ;  that  during 
said  time  lie  was  threatened,  and  promised  immunity  by  the  police  if  he  would  turn 
state's  witness  ;  that  the  police  clerk  and  Officer  Johnson  repeatedly  promised  this  affi- 
ant his  freedom  and  considerble  money  if  he  would  turn  state's  witness  ;  that  on  his 
protestations  that  he  knew  nothing  to  which  he  could  testify,  this  affiant  was  abused 
and  ill-treated ;  that  while  he  was  jailed  this  affiant  was  kicked,  clubed,  beaten  and 
scratched,  had  curses  and  abuses  heaped  upon  him  and  was  threatened  with  hanging  by 
the  police  ;  that  this  affiant's  wife  was  abused  by  the  police  when  she  sought  permission 
to  see  this  affiant.  Vaclav  DjMEk. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  14th  day  of  April.  A.  D. ,  1 893. 

Chaeles  B.  Pavlicek,  Notary  Public. 

Governor's  Conclusions. 

I  will  simply  say  in  conclusion  on  this  branch  of  the  case  that  therfacts  tend  to 
show  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  as  an  act  of  personal  revenge,  an  that  the  prosecution 
has  never  discovered  who  threw  it,  and  the  evidence  utterly  fails  to  show  that  the  man 
who  did  throw  it  ever  heard  or  read  a  word  coming  from  the  defendants  ;  consequently 
it  fe>Us  to  show  that  he  acted  on  any  advice  given  by  them.    And  if  he  did  not  act  on  or 


-     20    — 

hear  any  advice  coming  from  the  defendants,  either  in  speeches  or  through  the  pro  s, 
then  there  was  no  oase  against  them  even  under  the  law  as  laid  down  by  Judge  Gary, 

At  the  trial  a  number  of  detectives  and  members  of  the  police  force  swore  that  the 
defendant,  Fielden,  at  the  Hay  market  meeting,  made  threats  to  kill,  urging  his  hearers 
to  do  their  duty  as  he  would  do  his,  just  as  the  policemen  were  ooming  up,  and  one 
polioeman  swears  that  Fielden  drew  a  revolver  and  fired  at  the  police  while  he  was 
standing  on  the  wagon  and  before  the  bomb  was  thrown,  while  some  of  the  others 
testified  that  he  first  climbed  down  off  of  the  wagon  and  fired  wile  standing  by  a  wheel. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  proven  by  a  number  of  witnesses  and  by  facts  and 
ciroumstanoes  that  this  evidence  must  be  absolutely  untrue.  A  number  of  newspaper 
reporters  who  testified  on  the  part  of  the  state  said  that  they  were  standing  near 
Fielden,  much  nearer  than  the  police  were,  and  heard  all  that  was  said  and  saw  what 
was  done ;  that  they  had  been  sent  there  for  that  purpose,  and  that  Fielden  did  not 
make  any  such  threats  as  the  police  swore  to  and  that  he  did  not  use  a  revolver.  A 
number  of  other  men  who  were  near,  too,  and  some  of  them  on  the  wagon  on  which 
Fielden  stood  at  the  time,  swear  to  the  same  thing.  Fielden  himself  swears  that  he  did 
not  make  any  such  threats  as  the  police  swore  to,  and  further,  that  he  never  had  or  used 
a  revolver  in  his  life.  But  i£  there  were  any  doubt  about  the  fact  that  the  evidenoe 
charging  Felden  with  having  used  a  revolver  is  unworthy  of  credit,  it  is  removed  by 
Judge  Gary  and  State's  Attorney  Grinnell  on  Nov.  8,  1887,  When  the  question  of 
commuting  the  death  sentence  as  to  Fielden  was  before  the  governor.  Judge  Gary 
wrote  a  long  letter  in  regard  to  the  case  in  which,  in  speaking  of  Fielden,  he,  among 
other  things,  says  : 

There  is  in  the  nature  and  private  character  of  the  man  a  love  of  justice,  an  impatience  at 
undeserved  sufferings,  *  *  *  In  his  own  private  life  he  was  the  honest,  industrious  and 
peaceful  laboring  man.  In  what  he  said  in  court  before  sentence  he  was  respectful  and  decorous. 
Hit  language  and  conduct  since  have  been  irreproachable.  As  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  knew  of 
any  preparation  to  do  the  specific  act  of  throwing  the  bomb  that  killed  Degan,  he  does  not  under- 
stand even  now  that  general  advice  to  large  masses  to  do  violence  makes  him  responsible  for  the 
■violence  done  by  reason  of  that  advice.  *  *  *  In  short,  he  was  more  a  misguided,  enthusiast  than 
a  criminal  conscious  of  the  horrible  nature  and  effect  of  his  teachings  and  of  his  responsibility 
therefor. 

The  state's  attorney  appended  on  the  foregoing  a  letter  beginning  as  follows  : — 

"While  indorsing  and"  approving  the  foregoing  statement  by  Judge  Gary,  I  wish  to 
add  thereto  the  suggestion  *  *  *  that  Schwarb's  conduct  during  the  trial  and  when 
addressing  the  court  before  sentence,  like  Fielden's,  was  decorous,  respectful  to  the  law 
and  oommendable.  *  *  *lt  is  my  further  desire  to  say  that  I  believe  that  Schwab 
was  the  pliant,  weak  tool  of  a  stronger  will  and  more  designing  person.  Schwab  seems 
to  be  friendless." 

If  what  Judge  Gary  says  about  Fielden  is  true ;  if  Fielden  has  a  natural  love  of 
justice  and  in  his  private  life  was  the  honest,  industrious  peaceable  laboring  man, 
then  Fielden's  testimony  is  entitled  to  credit,  and  when  he  says  that  he  did  not  do  the 
things  the  police  charge  him  with  doing  and  that  he  never  had  or  used  a  revolver  in  his 
life,  it  is  probably  true,  especially  as  he  is  corroborated  by  a  number  of  credible  and 
disinterested  witnesses. 

Again,  if  Fielden  did  the  things  the  police  charged  him  with  doing,  if  he  fired  on 
them  as  they  swear,  then  he  was  not  a  mere  misguided  enthusiast  who  was  to  be  held 
only  for  the  consequences  of  his  teachings,  and  if  either  Judge  Gary  or  State's  Attorney 
Grinnell  had  placed  any  reliance  on  the  evidence  of  the  police  on  this  point  they  would 
have  written  a  different  kind  of  a  letter  to  the  then  executive. 

In  the  fall  of  1887  a  number  of  the  most  prominent  business  men  of  Chicago  met 
to  consult  whether  or  not  to  ask  executive  clemency  for  any  of  the  condemned  men. 
Mr.  Grinnell  was  present  and  made  a  speech,  in  which  in  referring  to  this  evidence 
he  said  that  he  had  serious  doubts  whether  Fielden  had  a  revolver  on  that  oocasion  or 
whether  indeed  Fielden  ever  had  one. 

Yet,  in  arguing  the  case  before  the  supreme  court  the  previous  spring,  much  stress 
was  placed  by  the  state  on  the  evidenoe  relating  to  what  Fielden  did  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting,  and  that  court  was  misled  into  attaching  great  importance  to  it. 

It  is  now  clear  that  there  is  no  case  made  out  against  Fielden  for  anything  that  he 
did  on  the  night,    and,   as  heretofore  shown,   in  order  to  hold  him  and  the  other 


—    21     — 

defendants  for  the  consequences  and  effects  of  having  given  prenicious,  and  criminal 
advice  to  large  masses  to  commit  violence,  whether  orally  in  speeches  or  in  print,  it 
must  be  shown  that  the  person  committing  the  violence  had  read  or  heard  the  advice, 
for  until  he  read  or  heard  it  he  did  not  receive,  and  if  he  never  received  the  advice  it 
'  cannot  be  said  that  he  acted  on  it. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  evidence  for  the  state  Carter  H.  Harrison,  then  Mayor  of 
Chicago,  and  E.  S.  Winston,  then  coporation  counsel  for  Chicago,  were  in  the  court- 
room and  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Grinnell,  the  state's  attorney,  in  regards  to  the 
evidence  against  Neebe,  in  which  conversation,  according  to  Mr.  Harrison  and  Mr. 
Winston,  the  state's  attorney  said  that  he  did  not  think  he  had  a  case  against  Neebe  and 
that  he  wanted  to  dimiss  as  to  him,  but  was  dissuaded  from  doing  so  by  his  associate 
attorneys,  who  feared  that  such  a  step  might  influence  the  jury  in  favor  of  the  other 
defendants. 

Mr.  Harrison,  in  a  letter,  among  other  things,  says  : 

"I  was  present  in  the  oourtroom  when  the  state  closed  its  case.  The  attorney  for 
Neebe  moved  his  disoharge  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  hold  him  on. 
The  state's  attorney,  Julius  S.  Grinnell,  and  Fred  S.  Winston,  corporation  counsel 
for  the  city,  and  myself  were  in  earnest  conversation  when  the  motion  was  made. 
Mr.  Grinnell  stated  to  us  that  he  did  not  think  there  was  sufficient  testimony  to  convict  Neebe. 
I  thereupon  earnestly  advised  him,  as  the  representasive  of  the  state  to  dismiss  the  case 
as  to  Neebe,  and,  if  I  remember  rightly,  he  was  seriously  thinking  of  doing  so,  but  on 
consultation  with  his  assistants  and  on  their  advice,  he  determined  not  to  do  so,  lest  it 
would  have  an  injurious  effeot  on  the  case  as  against  the  other  prisoners.  *  *  *  I 
took  the  position  that  such  discharge,  being  clearly  justified  by  the  testimony,  would 
not  prejudice  the  case  as  to  the  others." 

Mr.  Winston  adds  the  following  to  Mr.  Harrison's  letter  : 

"Mabch  21,  1889—1  concur  in  the  statement  of  Mr.  Harrison.  I  never  believed 
there  was  sufficient  evidence  to  convict  Mr.  Neebe,  and  so  stated  during  the  trial. 

F.  S.  Winston." 

.  In  January,  1890.  Mr.  Grinnell  wrote  a  letter  to  Governor  Fifer,  denying  that  he  had 
ever  made  any  such  statement  as  that  mentioned  by  Mr.  Harrison  and  Mr.  Winston ; 
also  that  he  did  believe  Neebe  guilty  :  that  Mr.  Harrison  suggested  the  dismissal  of  the 
case  as  to  Neebe,  and  further,  that  he  would  not  have  been  surprised  if  Mr.  Harrison 
had  made  a  similar  suggestion  as  to  others,  and  then  he  says  :  I  said  to  Mr.  Harrison  at 
the  time  substantially  that  I  was  afraid  that  the  jury  might  not  think  the  testimony 
presented  in  the  case  sufficient  to  convict  Neebe,   but  that  it  xoas  their  province  to  pass  upon  it. 

Now,  if  the  statement  of  Messrs.  Harrison  and  Winston  is  true,  then  Mr.  Grinnell 
should  not  have  allowed  Neebe  to  be  sent  to  the  penitentiary;  and  even  if  we  assume 
that  both  Mr.  Harrison  and  Mr.  Winston  are  mistaken,  and  that  Mr.  Grinnell  simply 
used  the  language  he  now  says  he  used,  then  the  case  must  have  seemed  very  weak  to 
him.  If,  with  a  jury  prejudiced  to  start  with,  a  judge  pressing  for  conviction,  and  amid 
the  almost  irresistible  fury  with  which  the  trial  was  conducted,  he  still  was  afraid  the 
jury  might  not  think  the  testimony  in  the  case  sufficient  to  convict  Neebe,  then  that 
testimony  must  have  seemed  very  weak  to  him,  no  matter  what  he  might  now  protest 
about  it. 

When  the  motion  to  dismiss  the  case  as  to  Neebe  was  made,  defendants'  counsel 
asked  that  the  jury  might  be  permitted  to  retire  while  the  motion  was  being  argued,  but 
the  court  refused  to  permit  this,  and  kept  the  jury  present  where  it  could  hear  all  that 
the  court  had  to  say,  then  when  the  argument  on  the  motion  was  begun  by  defendants' 
counsel  the  court  did  not  wait  to  hear  from  the  attorneys  from  the  state,  but  at  once 
proceeded  to  argue  the  points  itself  with  the  attorneys  for  the  defendants,  so  that  while 
the  attorneys  for  the  state  made  no  argument  on  the  motion,  twenty-five  pages  of  the  re- 
cord are  filed  with  the  colloquy  or  sparring  that  took  place  between  the  court  and  the 
counsel  for  the  defendants,  the  court  in  the  presence  of  the  jury  making  insinuations  as 
to  what  inference  might  be  drawn  by  the  jury  from  the  fact  that  Neebe  owned  a  little 
stock  in  a  paper  called  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  had  been  seen  there,  although  he  took 
no  part  in  the  management  until  after  the  Haymarket  troubles,  it  appearing  that  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung  had  published  some  very  seditious  artioles  with  which,  however, 


—     z2     — 

Neebe  had  nothing  to  do.  Finally  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  defendants  said:  "I 
expeoted  that  the  representative  of  the  state  might  say  something,  but  as  your  honor 
saves  them  that  trouble,  you  will  excuse  me  if  I  reply  briefly  to  the  suggestions  you 
have  made."  Some  other  remarks  were  made  by  the  court,  seriously  affecting  the 
whole  case  and  prejudicial  to  the  defendants,  and  then,  referring  to  Neebe,  the  court 
said: 

"Whether  he  had  anything  to  do  with  the  dissemination  of  advice  to  oommit 
murder  is,  I  think,  a  debatable  question  which  the  jury  ought  to  pass  on." 

Pinnally  the  motion  was  overruled.  Now,  with  all  of  the  eagerness  shown  by 
the  court  to  convict  Neebe,  it  must  have  regarded  the  evidence  against  him  as  very 
weak,  otherwise  it  would  not  have  made  this  admission,  for  if  it  was  a  debatable 
question  whether  the  evidence  tended  to  show  guilt,  then  that  evidence  must  have 
been  far  from  being  conclusive  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  be  was  actually 
guilty;  this  being  so,  the  verdict  should  not  have  been  allowed  to  stand,  because  the 
law  requires  that  a  man  shall  be  proved  to  be  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  before 
he  can  be  convicted  of  a  criminal  offense.  I  have  examined  all  of  the  evidence  against 
Neebe  with  care  and  it  utterly  fails  to  prove  even  a  shade  of  a  case  against  it.  Some  of 
the  other  defendants  were  guilty  of  using  seditious  language,  but  even  this  cannot  be 
said  of  Neebe. 

It  is  further  charged  with  much  bitterness  by  those  Who  speak  for  the  prisoners  that 
the  record  of  the  case  shows  that  the  judge  conducted  the  trial  with  malicious  ferocity 
and  forced  eight  men  to  be  tried  together ;  that  in  cross-examining 
the  state's  witnesses  he  confined  counsel  for  the  defense  to  the  specific 
points  touched  on  by  the  state,  while  in  the  cross-examination  of  the  defendants' 
witnesses  he  permited  the  state's  attorney  to  go  into  all  manner  of  subjects  entirely 
foreign  to  the  matters  on  which  the  witnesses  were  examined  in  chief;  also  that  every 
ruling  throughout  the  long  trial  on  any  contested  point  was  in  favor  of  the  state,  and, 
further,  that  page  after  page  on  the  record  contains  insinuating  remarks  of  the  judge, 
made  in  the  hearing  of  the  jury,  and  with  the  evident  intent  of  bringing  the  jury  to  bis 
way  of  thinking;  that  these  speeches,  coming  from  the  court,  were  much  more 
damaging  than  any  speeches  from  the  state's  attorney  could  possibly  have  been;  that 
the  state's  attorney  often  took  his  cue  from  the  judge's  remarks;  that  the  judge's  maga- 
zine article,  recently  published,  although  written  nearly  six  years  after  the  trial,  is  yet 
full  of  venom;  that,  pretending  to  simply  review  the  case,  he  had  to  drag  into  his  ar- 
ticle a  letter  written  by  an  excited  woman  to  a  newspaper  after  the  trial  was  over,  and 
which  therefore  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  case  and  was  put  into  the 
article  simply  to  create  a  piejudice  against  the  woman,  as  well  as  against  the  dead 
and  the  living,  and  that,  not  content  with  this,  he  in  the  same  article  makes  an  in- 
sinuating attack  on  one  of  the  lawyers  for  the  defense,  not  for  anything  done  at  the 
trial,  but  because  more  than  a  year  after  the  trial,  when  some  oi  the  defendants  had 
been  hanged,  he  ventured  to  express  a  few  kind,  if  erroneous,  sentiments  over  the 
graves  of  his  clients,  whom  he  at  least  believed  to  be  finnocent.  It  is  urged  that 
such  ferocity  or  subserviency  is  without  a  parallel  in  all  history;  that  even  Jeffries  in 
England  contented  himself  with  hanging  his  victims,  and  did  not  stop  to  berate  them 
after  they  were  dead. 

These  charges  are  of  a  personal  character,  and  while  they  seem  to  be  sustained  by 
the  reoord  of  the  trial  and  the  papers  before  me,  and  tend  to  show  that  the  tiial  was  not 
fair,  I  do  not  care  to  discuss  this  feature  of  the  case  any  farther,  because  it  is  not  neces- 
sary. I  am  convinced  that  it  is  dearly  my  duty  to  act  in  this  case  for  the  reasons  al- 
ready given,  and  I  therefore,  grant  an  absolute  pardon  to  Samuel  Fielden,  Osoar  Neebe 
and  Michael  Sohwab  this  26th  day  of  June,  1893.  John  P.  Altgeld, 

Governor    of    Illinois. 


The  Eighth  National  Oonvention  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party,  assembled  at 
Chicago,  July  2,  1893,  adopted  unanimously  the  following  resolution,  and  ordered  it,  to- 
gether with  Gov.  John  P.  Altgeld's  Statement  in  full,  to  be  printed  in  pamphlet  form  : 


-    23     — 


"Whert&s,  Gov.  Altgeld  has  pardoned 
Schwab,  Neebe  and  Fielden,  who  were  as 
Anarchists  confined  in  the  penitentiary  ;  and, 

"Whereas,  he  has  stated  his  motives  for 
doing  so ;  therefore  be  it 

"Kesolved,  That  we,  the  delegates  of  the 
Socialist  Labor  Party,  take  this  opportunity 
to  express  our  admiration  for  Gov.  Altgeld 
of  Illinois,  because  of  his  frank  and  cour- 
ageous statement  of  the  reasons  for  which 
he  exercised  his  prerogative  in  said  case. 
We  have  during  the  past  years  so  often  de- 
clared our  strong  opposition  to  Anarchistic 
logic  and  principles,  and  have  done  so  in 
such  vigorous  and  unmistakable  terms,  that 
we  deem  a  repetition  unnecessary ;  neverthe- 
less, we  have  not  failed  to  see  m  the  trial 
and  the  conviction  of  the  Anarchists,  not  the 
justice  which  is  meted  out  to  the  meanest 
criminal,  but  the  result  of  that  class  hatred 


and  class  justice,  which  at  all  times  has  been 
most  cruel.  There  is  nothing  new  to  the 
student  of  history  in  the  fact  that  when 
classes  are  arrayed  against  each  other  the  or- 
dinary forms  of  criminal  procedure  are  re- 
sorted to  in  order  to  cover  up  persecution  ; 
that  in  such  cases  opinions  and  the  expres- 
sions of  opinions,  and  not  the  actual  perpe- 
tration of  crime  is  punished,  and  that  malice 
and  hatred  are  clothed  in  the  garb  of  '  Jus- 
tice.' Contemporaries  who  are  blinded  by 
prejudice  and  class  feeling  are  unable  to  see 
this,  and  may,  unconsciously,  act  in  the 
honest  belief  of  being  just.  But  if  shortly 
afterward  a  man  in  the  official  capacity  of 
Governor  lays  bare  the  injustice  committed 
under  the  strong  feeling  of  that  time,  and 
has  the  courage  to  encounter  strong  preju- 
dices he  deserves  commendation  and  admi- 
ration." 


-to: 


Til  MODERN  TIAB1DI. 


DOWNFALL    OF   THE  SMALL    PRODUCER. 


The  Rise  and  Effect  of  Private  Monopoly— The  Death  Struggle  of  tbe 
Small  Farmer  and  Artlsan-Their  Inability  to  Hold  Their  Own- 
Either  Collective  Ownership  of  Capital,  or  Final  Subjugation  of 
the    People. 

Adapted  for  The  New  York  People,  from  k.  kautsky. 


Socialism  maintains  that: 

1.  The  economic  development  of  the 
capitalist  social  system  leads  with  the 
certainty  of  doom  to  the  downfall  of 
small  production,  whose  foundation  is  the 
private  ownership  by  the  worker  in  his 
means  of  production — machinery,  tools, 
land,  etc.;  it  divorces  the  worker  from 
his  means  of  production  and  transforms 
him  into  a  propertiless  proletarian,  while 
the  means  of  production  themselves  be- 
come the  monopoly  of  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  capitalists  and  land- 
lords. 

2.  Hand  in  hand  with  this  monopoliza- 
tion of  the  means  of  production  proceeds 
the  crowding  away  of  the  disjointed 
email  industries  by  colossal  concerns,  the 
development  of  the  tool  into  a  machine, 
and  the  gigantic  increase  in  the  produc- 
tive capacity  of  human  labor.  But  all  the 
advantages  of  this  transformation  are 
monopolized  by  the  capitalists  and  land- 
lords.   To  tbe  proletariat  and  the  sinking 


middle  classes— artisans,  small  farmers, 
etc.— it  means  only  greater  uncertainty 
of  livelihood,  and  increase  of  misery,  op- 
pression, vassalage,  degradation  and  ex- 
ploitation. 

3.  The  number  of  the  proletariat  grows 
larger  and  larger;  the  army  of 
superfluous  workers  swells  ever  more 
and  more;  the  contrast  between 
exploiters  and  exploited  grows  ever 
sharper;  and  ever  bitterer  grows 
the  class  struggle  between  capitalists  and 
proletarians,  which  divides  modern  so- 
ciety into  two  hostile  armies,  and  is  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  all  indus- 
trial countries. 

4.  The  chasm  between  the  property 
holders  and  the  propertiless  is  further 
widened  by  tbe  crises  which  are  inherent 
in  the  capitalist  system  of  production, 
which  spread  over  an  ever-increasing 
area  and  become  ever  more  destructive, 
which  raise  the  popular  uncertainty  in 
the  earning  of  a  livelihood  into  a  normal 


—    2 


condition  of  society,  and  which  furnish 
proof  positive  that  the  productive  pow- 
ers of  modern  society  have  grown  over 
its  head,  and  that  the  system  of  private 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production 
has  become  irreconcilable  with  the  ade- 
quate application  and  complete  develop- 
ment of  these  productive  forces. 

Many  a  fellow  imagines  he  has  said 
something  clever  when,  in  opposition  to 
this,  he  declares:  "There  is  nothing  new 
under  the  sun;  as  things  are  to-day,  so 
have  they  ever  been  and  so  will  they 
ever  be."  Yet  is  there  no  more  mistaken 
and  foolish  assertion  than  this.  Modern 
science  has  proved  that  nothing  is  at  a 
standstill;  society,  like  nature,  undergoes 
a  steady  development. 

Production,  whether  in  agricultural  or 
Industrial  pursuits,  starts  with  the  labor 
of  the  individual  alone,  or  of  individual 
families.  The  productivity  of  such  efforts 
is  slight.  So  long  as  this  stage  lasts  in- 
dustry is  carried  on  upon  a  small  scale. 
At  this  stage,  at  the  stage  of  small  pro- 
duction, the  product  depends  wholly  upon 
the  laborer,  upon  his  personality,  his 
diligence,  his  powers  of  endurance.  As  a 
result  of  this,  he  appropriates  his  own 
product  as  his  personal  property.  But 
this  individuality  in  production  cannot  be 
developed  by  the  laborer  unless  he  is  per- 
sonally free  and  can  freely  dispose  of  his 
means  of  production;  in  other  words,  un- 
less these  means  of  production  are  his 
private  property.  Private  property  in  the 
means  of  production  is  the  basis  of  small 
production. 

Now,  it  is  this  very  ownership  by  the 
small  producers  in  their  means  of  pro- 
duction that  the  economic  development 
of  capitalism  destroys,  and  thereby  it 
abolishes  the  system  of  small  production 
and  the  small  producers  themselves. 

The  stages  by  which  this  development 
takes  place  are  at  first  imperceptible, 
until  the  stages  of  manufactory  and  final- 
ly of  the,  factory  itself  are  reached.  In 
this  development  machinery  plays  a  gi- 
gantic role.  By  its  introduction  the 
capitalist  system  was  finally  placed  in 
possession    of   a    weapon    which   enabled 


it  to  overcome  easily  all  opposition,  anc1. 
turned  the  course  of  economic  develop- 
ment into  a  triumphal  march  for  capital. 
This  march  was  further  accelerated  by 
the  invention  of  the  steam  power,  which 
by  degrees  conquered  all  the  industrial 
nations  of  the  world.  The  productivity 
of  labor  was  thereby  multiplied  many 
thousandfold.  Communication        and 

transportation  were  in  their  turn  revo- 
lutionized. Prices  tumbled  down  in  pro- 
portion as  merchandise  became  more 
plentiful;  and  in  proportion  as  this  proc- 
ess went  and  still  goes  on  small  pro- 
duction, and  with  it  the  small  pro- 
ducer, went,  and  is  going,  by  the  board. 
To  attempt  to  compete  with  production 
on  a  large  scale,  propelled  by  steam  and 
electricity,  is  an  act  of  despair  on  the 
part  of  the  small  farmer  or  city  indus- 
trialist; neither  can  produce  as  plenti- 
fully, hence  as  cheaply,  as  the  perfected 
factory  or  large  farm;  their  prices  must 
be  higher  than  the  market  can  afford, 
and  their  downfall  is  but  a  question  of 
time.  That  there  should  still  be  as  many 
small  farmers  and  industrialists  as  there 
are  to-day  is  simply  an  evidence  of  the 
capacity   of   man   for  starvation. 

The  complete  disappearance  of  small 
production  is,  however,  not  the  first  act 
of  a  tragedy  that  may  be  entitled  "The 
Downfall  of  Small  Production."  The 
first  effect  of  capitalist  competition  is 
that  the  artisan— and  what  is  said  of  him 
holds  good  at  all  points  of  the  small 
farmer— begins  to  throw  into  the  breach, 
one  after  another,  all  the  savings  of  his 
own  industry,  together  with  such  as 
may  have  come  down  to  him  from  pre- 
vious generations.  The  small  fellow 
grows  poor;  to  stem  his  decline  he  be- 
comes more  industrious;  the  hours  of 
labor  are  lengthened,  and  drawn  deep 
into  the  night;  wife  and  children  are 
dragged  into  the  vortex;  yet  all  this,  not- 
withstanding the  extreme  lengthening 
of  the  hours  of  labor  and  the  feverish 
activity  that  affords  him  neither  pause 
nor  rest,  the  quantity  of  food  he  con- 
sumes becomes  steadily  less,  and  the 
expenses  for  household  and  clothing  suf- 


—     3     — 


fer  ever  increasing  retrenchment.  There 
is  no  existence  more  miserable  than  that 
of  the  small  farmer  or  small  industrial 
producer  who  is  endeavoring  to  hold  his 
own  in  competition  with  a  large  agricul- 
tural or  industrial  producer. 

There  is  no  little  truth  in  the  saying 
that  the  wage-earner  of  to-day  is  better 
off  than  the  small  farmer  or  the  small 
industrial  producer.  Those  who  most 
frequently  use  this  phrase  mean  to  im- 
ply thereby  that  the  wage-worker  has  no 
reason  to  complain.  This  statement  is, 
however,  a  boomerang  that  hits,  not  the 
Socialists,  but  the  advocates  of  capital- 
ism. If,  indeed,  those  who  are  wholly 
propertiless  are  better  off  .  than  those 
small  producers  who  still  have  some 
property  left,  of  what  use  can  property 
be  said  to  be  to  the  latter?  If  the  arti- 
san and  the  small  farmer  stick  to  their 
small  production,  although  they  could 
esrn  more  in  the  factory  as  wage- work- 
ers, simply  because  they  still  retain  some 
property,  it  is  evident  that  their  property 
hurts  rather  than  benefits  them.  To  the 
small  producer,  whether  agricultural  or 
industrial,  his  little  property  has  been 
transformed  from  a  shield  against  into  a 
bond  that  fetters  him  to  misery.  To  him 
the  effect  of  private  ownership  in  the 
means  of  production  has  changed  charac- 
ter; that  which  a  hundred  years  ago  was 
a  blessing  to  his  class  has  now  become  a 
curse. 

But,  it  may  be  objected,  this  misery  is 
the  price  which  the  small  agri- 
cultural or  industrial  producer  pays 
for  the  greater  degree  of  inde- 
pendence which  he  enjoys  over  the 
wage-worker,  who  is  wholly  propertiless. 
Even  this  is  false!  Wherever  small  pro- 
duction is  forced  into  competition  with 
large  production,  the  former  sinks  quick- 
ly into  complete  dependence  upon  the  lat- 
ter. The  artisan  becomes  an  appendage 
to  the  establishment  of  the  capitalists; 
his  home  becomes  an  outhouse  of  the 
factory,  or  he  sinks  still  lower.  And  as  to 
the  small  farmer,  to  whom  it.  is  impossi- 
ble to  stand  up  against  capitalist  compe- 
tition  as  farmer,   he  is  forced  either  to 


take  up  some  industrial  pursuit  in  his 
home  as  the  employee  of  capital,  or  he 
is  bound  to  hire  out  either  himself  or 
members  of  his  family  as  wage-workers 
to  the  large  farmer.  What  has  become 
of  the  independence  of  these?  Their  lit- 
tle property  is  the  only  thing  that  dis- 
tinguishes them  from  the  proletarian, 
and  it  is  this  very  property  that  prevents 
them  from  taking  advantage  of  the  best 
opportunities  to  labor;  it  rivets  them  to 
their  own  threshold,  with  the  effect  of 
making  them  more  dependent  than  the 
wage  workers  who  are  wholly  properti- 
less. Observation  shows  that,  private 
ownership  in  the  means  of  production  not 
only  increases  the  physical  misery,  but 
also  the  dependence  of  the  small  holder. 
The  effect  of  these  small  holdings  has 
wholly  changed  character;  before  the 
days  of  large  production  these  small 
holdings  were  a  bulwark  of  freedom;  to- 
day they  are  a  means  of  slavery. 

Another  contention  is  that  such  small 
holdings  vest  in  the  producing  small 
farmer  or  artisan  the  product  of  his  la- 
bor. Where  this  is  true  it  is  but  a  tri- 
fling consolation,  considering  that  the 
declining  prices  brought  on  by  large  pro- 
duction render  the  product  of  these  small 
producers  insufficient  for  their  domes- 
tic needs.  But  even  this  consolation  is 
mainly  illusory.  It  does  not  hold  good 
in  most  cases;  for  instance,  it  is  wholly 
false  in  the  cases  of  those  who  are  in 
debt.  The  usurer  who  has  a  mortgage  on 
a  farm  has  a  stronger  claim  upon  the 
labor  of  the  farmer  than  the  farmer  him- 
self. The  usurer  must  be  first  satisfied, 
only  what  is  left  falls  to  the  farmer; 
whether  this  remainder  suffices  to  sup- 
port the  farmer  and  his  family  does  not 
concern  the  usurer.  Accordingly,  the 
small  agricultural  and  industrial  pro- 
ducers work  as  absolutely  for  the  cap- 
italist as  does  the  wage-worker.  The 
only  difference  established  between  them 
J  by  the  private  property  of  the  former  is 
that  the  wages  of  the  propertiless  work- 
men is,  in  general,  controlled  by  their 
needs,  while  in  the  case  of  the  small 
property  holders,  there  is  no  limit  down- 


word;  it  frequently  happens  that  inter- 
est on  mortgages  will  absorb  the  whole 
product  of  the  labor  of  the  small  holder. 
In  that  case  he  has  worked  for  nothing 
and  paid  his  own  expenses  to  boot — all 
this,  thanks  to  his  ownership  of  a  little 
property! 

What  can  be  the  result  of  this  painful 
wrestling  of  the  small  with  the  gigantic 
power  of  the  large  producer?  What  fu- 
ture is  there  in  store  for  the  small  agri- 
cultural and  industrial  producer  as  a  re- 
ward for  his  thrift!  and  his  industry,  and 
of  his  having  dragged  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren with  him  into  slavery  at  the  cost  of 
their  physical  and  mental  ruin?  The  re- 
ward for  all  this  is  bankruptcy,  their 
final  divorce  from  all  means  of  produc- 
tion, their  downfall  into  the  class  of 
the  proletariat. 

This  is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  eco- 
nomic development  in  modern  society,  a 
result  that  is  as  inevitable  as  death  it- 
self. The  same  as  death  may  appear  as 
a  deliverer  to  him  who  is  afflicted  with  a 
painful  disease,  so  does  bankruptcy,  too, 
often  present  itself  as  a  deliverer  to  him 
who  was  bound  down  by  the  burden  of 
small  property.  Such  is  the  degradation 
and  misery  of  the  small  producers  that 
it  is  doubtful  whether  it  is  not  less  char- 
itable to  keep  them  up  in  their  present 
condition,  and  thereby  defer  the  day  of 
their  final  downfall  into  the  class  of  the 
proletariat,  than  actually  to  hasten  the 
process.  Because,  let  it  be  remembered, 
it  can  only  be  a  question  of  deferring 
their  final  downfall;  to  reinstate  the 
small  producer  in  his  pristine  vigor  is 
simply  impossible  in  these  days  of  steam 
and  electricity. 

This  is  a  bitter  truth  to  those  who  are 
interested  in  the  upholding  of  the  present 
social  system,   because  the  small  farmer 


and  the  small  city  producer  are  recog- 
nized as  the  main  props  of  the  present 
system  of  private  ownership  in  the  means 
of  production.  For  this  reason  the  ex- 
ploiting class  is  beating  about  for  pana- 
ceas to  save  the  small  producer.  The 
woods  are  full  of  quacks  ready  with  spe- 
cifics for  absolute  cure.  In  most  cases 
these  specifics  are  old.  They  have  all 
shown  their  uselessness  or  their  harm- 
fulness.  At  best  they  can  be  useful  only 
to  a  favored  few,  who  may  thereby  be 
enabled  to  drop  their  small  production 
and  swing  themselves  up  into  the  cate- 
gory of  large  producers,  i.  e.,  capitalists— 
at  the  expense,  of  course,  of  their  less 
favored  comrades,  out  of  whose  class  they 
have  raised  themselves. 

All  the  "social  reforms,"  all  the 
schemes  to  save  the  small  farmer  and 
small  producer  generally,  may  be  com- 
pared, in  so  far  as  they  are  at  all  ef- 
fective, with  a  lottery:  a  few  may  make 
a  hit,  but  the  large  majority  draw  only 
blanks,  and  must  foot  not  only  the  bills 
of  the  happy  few  who  draw  the  prizes, 
but  also  of  the  whole  scheme.  If  a  poor 
devil  who  holds  in  his  pocket  a  lottery 
ticket,  were  to  imagine  himself  rich  be- 
cause of  it,  he  wpuld  be  considered  a  fool. 
And  yet  this  is  exactly  the  mental  con- 
dition of  but  too  many  small  agricultural 
and  industrial  producers.  They  imagine 
they  are  that  which  they  would  like  to 
be,  not  what  they  are  in  fact;  they  carry 
themselves  as  capitalists,  yet  are  they; 
not  a  whit  better  off  than  proletarians. 

Present  or  prospective  proletarianism 
is  the  lot  of  the  masses  of  our  people,  if 
the  capitalist  system  of  production  is  to 
remain  in  force.  Freedom  cannot  be  con- 
quered or  reconquered  without  the  na- 
tional, collective,  ownership  of  the  means 
of  production;  without,  in  a  word,  the  co- 
operative commonwealth. 


THE  CRISIS. 


Its  Cause  and   Cure    as   Explained 
Proposed  by  Socialism- 


and 


By  Kakl  Ibsen. 


With  the  advent  of  the  present  crisis, 
which  is  sweeping  through  the  country 
like  a  cyclone,  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
workmen  are  thrown  into  idleness,  and 
poverty  is  augmented  to  an  unprecedented 
degree.  The  unemployed,  unwilling  to 
slowly  die  of  starvation,  insist  upon  the 
common  rights  of  humanity,  and  demand 
work  or  bread. 

In  the  presence  of  this  great  army  of  the 
unemployed  and  their  atrocious  misery,  even 
the  capitalistic  press  has  not  the  hardihood 
to  deny  the  presence  of  poverty  among  the 
so-called  free,  independent  and  highly  pro- 
tected workmen  of  the  United  States,  whose 
condition  and  wages  have  heretofore  been 
alleged  to  be  immeasurably  superior  to  those 
of  the  "pauper  labor  of  Europe." 


But  although  there  is  perfect  agreement 
among  all  stratas  of  our  population  as  to 
the  presence  of  the  crisis,  there  is  consider- 
able difference  of  opinion  as  to  its  cause, 
and  the  means  necessary  to  arrest  its  pro- 
gress, and  prevent  overwhelming  disaster. 

According  to  the  Republican  press,  the 
crisis  is  due  to  probable  Democratic  tariff 
tinkering.  The  journals  of  Democracy 
blame  the  crisis  on  the  evil  effects  of  the 
Sherman  act,  while  the  great  mass  of 
farmers,  and  a  considerable  number  of 
wage  earners  demand  free  and  unlimited 
coinage  of  silver  as  a  remedy  necessary  to 
bring  us  out  of  the  present  industrial  chaos, 
which  they  unwittingly  attribute  to  a  scarc- 
ity of  the  circulating  medium. 

We  Socialists  therefore  are  in  duty  bound 


2     — 


to  do  our  part  toward  clarifying  the  public 
mind  relative  to  the  causes  which  underlie 
the  present  business  depression,  and  to  point 
out  that  while  all  the  above  alleged  causes 
have  contributed  to  the  present  manfesta- 
tion,  they  are  not  the  main,  moving  factors 
of  the  depression. 

When  an  organism  is  once  thoroughly 
permeated  with  the  virus  of  disease;  when 
the  circulating  tubes  of  its  life-fluid  have 
become  overcased  and  stopped,  it  requires 
only  the  combination  of  very  small  factors 
to  percipitate  the  collapse  of  the  entire 
system. 

identically  herewith  are  the  progressive 
steps  of  the  present  crisis;  let  us  therefore 
view  the  parallelism  of  the  enigma  con- 
fronting us  briefly  and  succinctly: 

The  manufacturer  invests  in  productive 
enterprises,  not  because  he  has  orders,  but 
because  he  believes  that  the  finished  product 
of  his  special  industry  will  find  a  ready 
market.  The  merchant  makes  precisely  the 
same  sort  of  a  calculation,  and  orders  goods 
only  with  a  view  ©f  being  able  to  dispose  of 
them  again. 

And  then  modern  gigantic  production, 
machine  equipped  and  science  directed,  like 
unto  a  prize-dance,  begins  its  wild  gallop 
intent  only  on  first  reaching  the  market. 

But  the  radius  in  which  the  commodities 
produced  by  labor  can  be  disposed  of,  has 
been  materially  contracted,  and  therefore 
every  decade  of  the  past  has  been  character- 
ized by  a  financial  crisis,  resulting  in 
business  depressions  in  all  the  industrial 
countries  of  the  globe. 

Present  modern  production  has  become 
mutual,  fraternal,  social.  50,  100,  1,000, 
10,000  workmen  socially  contribute  their 
efforts,  as  separate,  simple  factors  of  a  com- 
plex industrial  organism,  fortified  and  sup- 
ported by  all  the%  latest  achievements  of 
industrial  development  and  mechanic 
science.  As  a  result  of  these  improved  con- 
ditions, the  efficiency  of  labor  and  the  pro- 
ductiveness of  toil  has  been  largely  aug- 
mented, and  is  being  constantly  increased 
and  enlarged.  The  result  of  this  is  an  un- 
dreamed and  emancipated  productiveness, 


unparalleled  in  the  industrial  history  of  the 
world. 

Reasonably,  this  increased  productivity 
of  labor  ought  to  surround  the  producers 
with  increased  comforts  and  banish  all  need 
and  misery  from  their  ranks;  but  contrary 
to  this  we  see,  that  the  more  the  efficiency 
of  labor  increases,  the  more  treasure  there 
i8  accumulated,  the  more  poverty  envelopes 
the  working  class,  because  the  laborer  only 
receives  in  wages  a  small  portion  of  the 
value  of  his  product,  while  the  lion's  share 
thereof,  through  the  conduit  pipe  of  the 
wage  system,  flows  into  the  coffers  of  cap- 
italism, in  recognition  of,  and  payment  for, 
the  use  of  the  means  of  production,  of 
which  it  is  sole,  exclusive  and  legal  posses- 
sor. 

Thus  the  laborer  is  annually  compelled  to 
produce  $1,789  worth  of  goods  (Census  of 
1880,  see  Dr.  Geo.  E.  Stiebeling's  Economic 
Development  of  the  United  States,  1886, 
page  10,)  and  receives  therefore,  in  wages, 
an  average  of  $350  per  annum,  only.  There 
are,  consequently,  $1,448  worth  of  goods 
annually  produced  by  labor,  over  and  above 
the  purchasing  power  of  $350  to  buy.  The 
capitalist  must  therefore  look  elsewhere  for 
consumers,  in  order  to  reduce  the  surplus 
which  the  wages  of  tho  producer  does  not 
enable  him  to  absorb.  In  proportion  as 
modern  giant  factory  production  is  devel- 
oped, and  the  more  men  are  degraded  into 
mere  wage  earners,  the  smaller  grows  the 
prospect  of  disposing  of  such  industrial 
excess  and  surplus  in  the  domestic  or 
"home  market,"  and  capitalism  is  therefore 
forced  to  seek  a  foreign  market,  and  enter 
into  competition  with  all  rivals  in  the 
markets  of  the  world. 

But  the  manufacturers  of  the  United 
States  are  not  isolated  in  this  respect,  for  all 
modern  industrial  countries:  England,  Ger- 
many, Prance,  Belgium  etc.,  are  effected 
with  the  same  congestion,  and  are  endeavor- 
ing to  dispose  of  their  commodity  surplus 
in  the  world  market.  Naturally,  the  larger 
the  number  of  nations  contending  for  indus- 
trial supremacy,  or  participating  as  sup- 
pliers, the  smaller  must  be  She  portion  of 


—    3 


demand  or  consuming  demand,  apportion- 
able. 

Countries  which  previously  drew  their 
supplies  from  abroad,  are  fostering  home 
industries,  and  are  changing  from  customers 
to  competitors,  from  consumers  of  our 
goods,  to  producers  of  like  goods,  and  thus 
daily  narrow  and  circumscribe  our  markets, 
and  intensify  the  competitive  international 
struggle.  For  this  reason  the  markets  are 
annually  divided  among  an  enlarged  number 
of  competitors,  and  in  the  endeavor  to 
maintain  or  retain  markets,  prices  must  be 
cut  so  close  as  to  force  rival  domestic  pro- 
ducers to  checkmate  each  other,  and  mechan- 
ical invention  and  industrial  revolutions  are 
but  but  the  constant  resorts  of  capital  to 
prevent,  check  or  delay,  financial  ruination. 
And  thus  oil  is  furnished  to  the  conflagera- 
tion ! 

The  domestic  or  home  market  must  there- 
fore remain  the  principal  objective  point  of 
all  competition  factors,  and  must  be  relied 
on  to  furnish  the  largest  member  of  con- 
sumers. And  in  this  home  market  the 
great  mass  of  consumers,  i.  e.  the  producers 
and  wage  earners,  are  being  constantly 
crippled  with  wage  reductions  and  longer 
periods  of  enforced  idleness,  all  of  which 
greatly  reduce  the  purchasing  and  consum  ■ 
ing  power.  As  a  consequence  we  have  a 
superabundance  of  goods  on  the  one  hand, 
and  thousands  of  idle  workmen  unable  to 
purchase  the  necesseries  of  life,  on  the 
other  hand.  Thersfrom  result  the  abnor- 
mal and  colossal  accumulation  of  comodit- 
ies,  such  a  congestion  of  surplus  products, 
which  compell  a  complete  or  partial  cessa- 
tion of  industrial  activity,  until  such 
surplus  shall  have  been  sacrificed  in  order 
to  make  shelf-room  for  newer  goods,  later 
patterns,  and  better  designes. 

In  such  condition  the  industries  of  the 
United  States  at  present  find  themselves; 
a  condition  of  overproduction  caused  by 
underconsumption  of  the  working  classes, 
who  cannot  buy  back  with  their  decreased 
wages,  the  products  of  their  labor  power, 
wonderfully  augmented  by   the  increased 


efficiency  of  modern  invention  and  industri- 
al mechanical  achievements. 

For  years  past,  economists  and  statistic- 
ians have  foretold  the  present  crisis,  basing 
their  predictions  on  the  increased  labor 
efficiency  and  the  contracted  or  divided 
market  demand.  The  crisis,  therefore,  has 
been  ripening,  and  in  the  natural  order  of 
events  would  have  reached  culmination;  but 
its  outbreak  has  been  percipitated  by  insecure 
financial  conditions,  hence  we  have  an  on- 
rush of  disaster,  a  cyclone-like  confronta- 
tion, which  staggers  national  industry,  and 
baffles  modern  statesmanship  ! 

"Scarcity  of  money"  cry  the  mortgage- 
burdened  farmers  and  a  great  portion  of 
such  workers  as  have  not  yet  arrived  at  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  real  cause  of  the 
present  industrial  depression,  and  from 
thence  originates  also  the  demand  for  free 
and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver — from  2,000 
to  3,000  millions  of  new  "In  God  We  Trust" 
silver  is  to  be  coined ! 

The  gross  exchange  required  by  business 
transactions  in  the  United  States  during  the 
past  year,  amounted  to  nearly  162,000 
millions  of  dollars;  eight  per  cent,  of  which 
only  consisted  of  legal  tender,  and  92  per 
cent  of  negotiable  paper,  i.  e.  checks,  notes 
etc.,  which  are  acceptable  on  'change  only  so 
long  as  confidence  in  the  earning  power  of 
labor  and  the  dividend-declaring  power  of 
invested  capital  is  not  jeopardized  by 
economic  conditions  and  competitive  fac- 
tors. 

In  view  of  such  facts,  what  would  the 
issuance  of  2,000  millions  of  any  kind  of 
additional  legal  tender  amount  to  as  com- 
pared with  150,000  millions  of  negotiable 
paper  which  has  come  to  be  a  necessity  of 
modern  business  requirement?  Certainly  they 
would  not  suffice  to  obviate,  alleviate,  or 
banish  the  crisis ! 

Before  the  latter  can  be  abolished,  con- 
fidence in  the  earning  power  of  labor  must 
be  restored,  and  therefore  free  silver  coin- 
age can  contribute  nothing  to  the  needs  of 
the  hour. 

The  manufacturer  seeks  the  necessary 
funds  through  his  bank,  depositing  there- 


fore  "acceptable  paper"  which  derives  its 
value  from  the  possible  and  probable  earn- 
ing power  of  the  employed  labor;  it  is 
"made  out"  and  "accepted"  in  the  belief  and 
anticipation  that  before  such  paper  falls  due, 
goods  of  value  sufficient  to  make  good  and 
cover  the  amount  of  money  advanced,  shall 
have  been  sold  and  collections  therefore 
made. 

So  long  as  business  is  good  and  trade  is 
brisk,  all  such  secret  financial  transactions 
run  along  as  though  they  had  been  prompt- 
ly oiled  and  amply  lubricated;  but  as  soon  as 
goods  begin  to  pile  up  and  accumulate, 
trade  slackens  and  business  stagnates,  a  differ- 
ent aspect  appears ! 

In  such  a  time,  the  manufacturer  cannot 
realize  on  his  outstanding  bills;  and  lacking 
ready  casb,  he  will  be  "accomodated"  with 
an  "extension"  only  in  case  his  assests  over- 
whelmingly cover  measured  liabilities. 

Such  cases  are  not  isolated;  they  are  in  fact, 
numerous;  many  firms  need  money  in  such 
trying  times  as  tnese  and  demand  for  accom- 
modations pressing  supply,  the  inevitable 
results — banks  become  cautious  in  the  mat- 
ter of  "loans"  and  "advances"  and  faith  in 
the  power  of  paper  seeks  and  searches  for  a 
sure  foundation. 

Every  positive  hath  its  negative. 

Banks  insist  upon  realization.  All  out, 
nothing  in,  cripples  business  and  reduces 
dividends.  The  necessities  of  business  are 
the  banker's  opportunities.  The  screws  am 
turned.  Down  goes  one,  followed  by  other 
manufacturers;  and  bankruptcy  hath  her 
hour  of  triumph.  Allured  by  high  dividend 
prospects,  banks  have  advanced  money  on 
very  questionable  securities.  They,  too, 
become  involved,  not  being  able  to  "realize 
immediately." 

'Tis  an  oft-told  tale,a  crash,and  all  is  over, 
and  down  with  it  go  other  banks,  similarly 
situated,  carrying  paper  which  cannot  be 
realized  upon.  Small  depositors,  sharing 
the  general  unrest  and  lack  of  confidence, 
lift  their  accounts,  and  add  to  the  universal 
chaos. 

Financial  swinery  is  triumphant. 
But  the  solid  banks  agglomerate  all  avail- 
able funds  and  prepare  to  present  an  un- 
daunted frontlet  to  all  comers  and   "runs." 

Available  legal  tender  circulation  is  thus 
diminished,  and  negotiable  paper  has  come 
to  play  but  a  small  part  in  business  trans- 
actions. Confidence  in  such  paper  is  re- 
established only  after  a  part  of  the  com- 
modity excess  has  been  disposed  of,  and 
room  made  for  new  goods  for  which  demand 
has  been  sharpened. 

The  coinage  of  several  thousand  millions 
of  silver  dollars  would  result  only  in  a  de- 
preciation of  currency,  and  consequently  an 

THE 


increase  in  the  price  of  every  commodity  of 
commerce,  as  well  as  the  necessities  of  life. 

To  compensate  for  this,  the  workers 
must  move  for,  and  obtain,  an  increase  in 
wages.  How  almost  impossible  that  is, 
under  present  circumstances,  every  tollor 
knows. 

The  cry  for  free  and  unlimited  silver 
coinage  may  therefore  be  very  appropriate 
when  coming  from  a  silver  mine  operator 
or  a  mortgage  burdened  farmer,  who  desires 
to  pay  $1.00  worth  of  debt  with  60  cents 
worth  of  silver,  (40  per  cent,  of  fictitious 
value  having  been  added  by  fiat,  for  domestic 
transactions  only  for  foreign  nations  with 
whom  we  trade,  will  not  accept  our  silver 
except  at  such  bullion  value  as  is  commer- 
cially fixed  in  the  world's  market,)  but 
coming  from  wage  earners,  such  demand 
only  demonstrates  a  deplorable  lack  of  com- 
prehension of  the  real  condition  of  affaire. 

We  have  seen  that  the'  crisis  is  the  result 
of  the  present  system  of  planless  production, 
and  its  consequent  and  inherent  exploitation 
of  the  working  classes. 

From  the  moment  in  which  exploitation 
is  abolished,  and  the  producer,  instead  of 
receiving  }£  of  the  value  of  his  labor  pro- 
duct in  wages,  receives  the  full  value 
thereof,  the  cause  and  occasion  of  all  panics 
vanish,  and  millionaires  and  paupers  become 
impossibilities. 

In  their  place  the  Commonwealth  of  the 
people  will  be  enthroned.  In  order  to  ob- 
tain such  results,  the  demand  for  more 
silver  is  not  pertinent,  but  the  transference 
of  all  the  means  of  production  from  Capital- 
ism to  the  hands  of  the  People. 

And  to  accomplish  this,  the  working  class 
must  separately  organize  for  political  action, 
and  under  one  banner  take  up  the  class 
struggle  for  final  emancipation. 

The  Socialist  Labor  Party  of  all  countries 
has  for  years  past  uncompromisingly  done 
pioneer  service  on  .these  lines.  In  Europe 
she  is  marching  to  political  victory  with 
accelerated  speed,  and  everywhere  is  con- 
vinced that  the  intellectual  portion  of  the 
laboring  class  must  soon  or  late  rally  under 
the  banner  of  Socialism,  for  unto  our  prin- 
ciples alone  the  vast  future  belongs. 

FEiiLOW- Workmen  f.  Think  of  the  truths 
herein  elucidated,  and  the  facts  cited  and 
applied. 

If  you  find  our  presentation  of  the  causes 
of  industrial  depressions  well  founded, 
duty  compells  you  to  identify  yourselves 
with  us  and  take  position  among  the  rank 
and  file  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  for  the 
emancipation  of  the  working  class,  and  the 
institution  of  the  Co-operative  Common- 
wealth. 

END. 


What  Socialists  Want 

EVERY  human  being  to  be  well  housed,  clothed,  fed  and 
educated. 

The  adoption  of  a  social  and  industrial  system  that  will  put 
an  end  to  profit,  interest,  rent  and  all  forms  of  usury. 

Land,  water,  machinery,  all  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution,  and  all  the  available  forces  of  nature  to  be  owrned 
by  and  operated  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people. 

The  gradual  elimination,  and  finally  the  abolition,  of  all  use- 
less and  unproductive  toil. 

The  work-day  to  be  as  short  as  the  needs  of  the  people  will 
permit—about  four  hours  per  day,  if  possible. 

Every  person  of  suitable  age,  and  physical  and  mental  ability, 
must  work  or  starve.     "  He  that  will  not  work  shall  not  eat." 

Wo  Child  Labor! 

Every  one  to  receive  the  full  value  of  his  or  her  labor. 

A  higher  standard  of  living,  and  a  higher  plane  4of  morals  as 
the  result,  thus  securing  enjoyment  for  all. 

These  reforms  to  be  achieved  by  agitation,  education/ organi- 
zation and  the  intelligent  exercise  of  the  Ballot  ! 

The  above  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  measures  to  be  accom- 
plished to  secure  the  establishment  of  the  CO-OPERATIVE 
COMMONWEALTH. 

For  further  information  read  THE  PEOPLE,  the  organ 
of  the  SOCIALIST  LABOR  PARTY,  a  weekly  paper  devoted 
to  the  interests  of  the  toiling  masses.  Publication  Office,  184 
William  Street,  New  York  City. 

Attend  the  Free  Public  Lectures  and  Debates  every  Sunday 
Evening  at  eight  o'clock.  Commencing  in  September  they  are 
continued  until  May  following.  By  consulting  THE  PEOPLE 
you  will  find  where  these  meetings  are  held  from  Sunday  to 
Sunday,  with  the  names  of  speakers  and  the  subjects  discussed. 

You  may  ask  questions  or  take  part  in  the  Debate. 

The  most  important  thing  is  to  vote  the  ticket  of  the  Socialist 
Labor  Party.  If  you  do  not,  then  cease  to%  prate  about  hard 
times.  They  are  the  natural  result  of  the  iniquitous,  miserable, 
social  and  industrial  system  under  which  you  live.  Do  not 
whine,  beg  or  threaten  !    VOTE !     Vote  it  out  of  existence  ! 

®~  The  SOCIALIST  vote  in  New  York  State  last  Fall  was 
TWENTY  THOUSAND  ! 


German  Official  Organ  of  the  SOCIALIST  LABOR  PARTY. 
64  Bast  Fourth  Street,  New  York  City. 

Subscription  $2.00  a  year,  50  cents  a  quarter, 
5  cents  a  copy. 


<Jf? tv  $(orhqr  ^olhgzqUmiq. 


A  German  Daily,  Devoted  to  the  Interests 

of  the  Working  People. 


SUBSCRIPTION    PRICES: 
DAILY  EDITION  $6.00  A  YEAR. 

SUNDAY       "  2.00 

WEEKLY       "         1.50 


THE   WEEKLY    EDITION 

is  tlie  best,  most  newsy  and  instructive  German  paper  in  the  United  States. 
It  contains  8  pages,  64  columns,  of  most  interesting  reading  matter. 

PRICE,  $1.50  A  YEAR.      POST   PAID  TO   EUROPE,  $2.00. 


Office,  184:  William  Street,  New  York  City. 

P.  O.  BOX  1512, 


OFFICIAL  ORGAN  OF  THE 

Socialist   Labor  Party, 

:N.  Y.  Central  Labor  Federation, 

And  other  Organizations  of  Labor, 


TRUTHFUL  RECORDER  OF  LABORS  STRUGGLES! 

UNFLINCHING  ADVOCATE  OF  LABORS  RIGHTS! 

INTREPID  FOE  TO  LABOR'S  OPPRESSORS ! 


JHoJrktygtye*),  tyte  fo  P^  ftyftl    fy$  If! 


ISSUED    WEEKLY. 

Subscription ,        00  a  year:    60  cents  half  a  year, 
30  cent 's        'farter.    3  cents  a  copy. 


184  WILLIAM  STREET,  NEW  YORK  CIT\ 

P.  O.  BOX   I5i2. 


? 


